A commentary on Ecclesiastes

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A commentary on Ecclesiastes
Author: Dale, Thomas Pelham
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A commentary on Ecclesiastes" ***

A COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ The original text displayed the Authorized Version of │
│ Scripture on the left page and the author’s paraphrase on │
│ the facing right page. For the electronic formats, these │
│ two versions for each verse have been placed in two columns │
│ followed immediately by the corresponding commentary. │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable symbols have been presented in square brackets │
│ with a description [Leo astrological sign] │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ emphasized text within │
│ italics --> |text| │
│ bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

A COMMENTARY
ON
ECCLESIASTES

RIVINGTONS

London _Waterloo Place_
Oxford _High Street_
Cambridge _Trinity Street_

A COMMENTARY
ON
ECCLESIASTES

BY THE REV.

THOMAS PELHAM DALE, M.A.

LATE FELLOW OF SIDNEY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
AND RECTOR OF ST. VEDAST WITH ST. MICHAEL LE QUERNE, LONDON.

דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְחִידֹתָם׃ יִרְאַת יְהוָה♦ רֵאשִׁית דָּעַת

♦ “יְחוָֹה” replaced with “יְהוָה”

RIVINGTONS
London, Oxford, and Cambridge
1873

JOHN HALL GLADSTONE, ESQ. PH. D. F.R.S.

THROUGH WHOSE LIBERALITY IT SEES THE LIGHT,

IS THIS WORK AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY

The Author.

PREFACE.

THE following Commentary differs from many of its predecessors in the
greater weight given to the interpretation of the LXX., and the closer
investigation of their peculiar renderings. In many cases these strange
renderings on the part of the LXX. are dismissed by commentators as
simply errors. But this is not consistent with what true criticism
ought to do. The LXX. is not only the oldest translation we have,
but also the only one made when Hebrew was yet a living language.
Its peculiar renderings then deserve our most serious attention. The
investigation of them will fully reward the inquirer. This, then,
is the cause of the special line of interpretation adopted in this
Commentary.

With regard to the Book of Ecclesiastes itself, the writer must confess
himself _homo unius libri_; for some years past all his Hebrew and
Greek studies have been devoted to the investigation of the meaning
of this one book in the Sacred Canon, and all his conclusions must
be taken with the reservation that they apply, directly, to this one
book alone. Such a concentration of effort may be expected to produce
results which might not be arrived at by a far wider and more extensive
research, just as a few rays of sunlight concentrated by a small lens
will burn where the sun himself will only warm.

Nevertheless, this book does not profess to be anything in the nature
of a new discovery. Sense is attempted to be made of difficult passages
by what may be called a microscopic attention to the grammar of the
writer, and a minute and careful analysis of every form and expression
he uses. The test of the correctness of the meaning thus found is
displayed in the way in which it falls into place in the context, and
squares with its tenor. But nothing novel in the way of Hebrew grammar
is urged, or anything which may not be found in ordinary commentaries,
except, perhaps, it be the fact of the difference of signification
between the contracted and full relative pronoun――a usage which is
peculiar to the Book of Ecclesiastes. This has hitherto been dismissed
by other commentators as evidence of late composition, without giving
it the notice it merited.

Many points of interest are started in these pages, which would well
repay a more careful investigation than I have either leisure or
learning to follow out. They are only presented so far as necessary
to illustrate and clear up difficulties in the interpretation of that
marvellous book which is the subject of this Commentary. If I have
succeeded, the Church will be benefited; if I have altogether failed,
my book will only add a few pages more to the vast literature which
this, the scientific treatise of the Divine Word, has elicited.

LONDON, _Oct. 1873_.

INTRODUCTION.

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.

THE title or superscription of the book is, chapter i. 1, ‘The
words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is
further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in
Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to
this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church,
Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted
author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so
far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or
personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer.
It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so
early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book
point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion
amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards
the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so
far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very
latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.

A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in the
_Coheleth_ of Dr. Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the
reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary,
therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what
concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that
several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by
arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren.
Dr. Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre, Dr. Taylor Lewis of America, argue
that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn
(_Commentar über das Predigerbuch_, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the
side of the Solomonic authorship.

The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal
evidence, arise from (_first_) the state of violence and misery
depicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged,
cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon;
and (_secondly_) the strongly Aramaic character of the language,
which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther.
With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real
interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special
description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or
even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far
also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the
contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose
it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity
or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapter iv. 1
we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose
them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s
argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external
circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by
the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this
statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful
Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially
discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of
Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under
an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place
of the holy (chapter viii. 10), or servants are seen on horseback, and
nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapter x. 7), or that men continue
in prosperous wickedness (chapter ix. 3). Indeed, the same may be said
of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this
book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of
civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is
‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’
is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because
there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint,
he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment
he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he
adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the
best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could
be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary;
but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is that _all_――that
is, the whole of human life――is vanity or evanescence.

The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would
be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew
language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case.
It is quite true that such words as מדינה ,רעיון ,רעות ,כבר ,זמן ,פתגם, have an
Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald
remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which
has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by
referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are
introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not
found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be
out of harmony with the context, _e.g._ the word זמון replaces the more
ordinary מיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify a _feast_,
but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the
argument. Again, כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is
used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the
ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual ♦אלו, chapter vi. 6, also is
apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration with הלא in the
next clause, and the once occurring עֲדֶן chapter iv. 3, for the sake of
the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are
noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that
the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very
considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one
way or the other.

♦ “הלא” replaced with “אלו”

Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from
all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing
Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time,
that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring.
Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent
to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets
should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the
earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as the LXX. seem
to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also
from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally
delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong
indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly
have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between
the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated,
and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately
uncertain.

On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I
am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself
leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon.
In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness,
I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the
book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.

DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.

The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the
concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments,
for _this_ is the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never
for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound
most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to
an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture,
however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive;
sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this
subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its
harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is
a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and
holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether
they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon
words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary
circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these
equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a
popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher.
His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with
another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has
some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!

The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or
topic――‘Vanity of vanities,’――and forthwith proceeds to state the
question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has
mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by
reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used is עמל, by
which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses by μέριμνα,
cares of this life, Matthew xiii. 22)? This he answers in the negative
by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from
moral considerations, which we have called the eight _un_beatitudes of
the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then
goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential
difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to
be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession
that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth, etc., are alike evanescent
and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to
do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great
division of the book――Chapters I. and II.

In the next five Chapters, III. to VII., the same question is discussed
from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable
character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that
human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration
could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight
times or seasons――that is, a fourfold seven――of which the last is
‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an
instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows
to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances.
He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of
reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.

But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does
impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or
circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth
offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the
second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is
however stated in the last verse of chapter iii. (22), which is, that
if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist
in present gratification.

Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions,
this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the
existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be
all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of
success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for
posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically
points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only
instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully
limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under
the sun,’ _i.e._ in this world of labour and toil, being introduced
frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.

In Chapter V. Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human
ills――that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will,
cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches,
selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet
subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire
to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this
Chapter VI. ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the
treatise.

Chapter VII. opens with a paradoxical statement of seven good things,
which look like evil ones, and on this Koheleth develops the thought
that man does not know a good thing when he sees it. He shows that even
wisdom itself will not necessarily produce happiness in this world,
though this, he is sure, is a good thing; but he is very bitter and
sarcastic on those who, because right does not always succeed, resort
to impiety; this, he shows, is a great and fatal mistake. Though the
proposition that piety is happiness is not formally stated or worked
out argumentatively, nevertheless this is proved so completely that
Koheleth is able at the end of the whole to cite this as the real
result of his argument.

If, however, piety be the remedy for human ills, early piety is
essential to tolerable ease and quiet in this world. This is set forth
in the same paradoxical and sarcastic way as before. We are advised to
avoid certain evils while we can. These are described with great pathos
in Chapter XII. It is however, we believe, quite a mistake to imagine
that the close of the book contains an _allegorical_ description of
old age. The weakness and other trials of age are, no doubt, brought
before us in very poetic and picturesque language. There is an Oriental
richness and floridness about this language at first strange to Western
ears; but the images employed all admit of resolution by an appeal to
the usage of Scripture elsewhere, and can be shown to be quite in place.
The conclusion of the whole is significantly the same as the topic at
the beginning, ‘Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity.’

The Epilogue, chapter xii. 9, follows. This has been pronounced by some
to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more
imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as
vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct,
than we could believe that the Gospel of St. Mark was ever intended to
end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mark xvi. 8]. It
is rather the bold, open statement of the truth, which has in a more or
less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism,
‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible
solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it
is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must
leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment――_i.e._ into adjustment
or declared consistency with justice――every mystery, whether to our
notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends.

GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES.

The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise,
and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified
to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we
may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew
language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’
This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this
book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once
occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent
to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines
himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses
articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to
Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered
between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive
is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full
relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be
seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive
sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention
of the particle את; a distinction which the LXX. were quite aware of,
and which gave rise to their adverbial σὺν. What, for want of a better
term, we have called distributive plurals――_i.e._ a singular noun and
plural verb in agreement, or _vice versâ_――are exceedingly significant.
They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances
and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence
whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the
running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom
requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters
are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes――perhaps some may
imagine pressed too far, and repeated _ad nauseam_; but the excuse must
be that on these minutiæ depend the evidence of correct rendering. If
thus a good sense is made out, as it were spontaneously, and which,
moreover, is found to fall into place as it occurs in the context, we
have strong evidence that we have hit the real meaning.

Connected with this grammatical usage is a peculiar terminology, also
to be expected in a scientific treatise. Thus דבר is very commonly
rendered in this Commentary by ‘reasoning,’ the exact idea implied
being a matter or thing reasoned about, with the further notion or
conclusion that this reason will become ground of action. No single
English or even Greek word will render it, but once let us master its
real significance, and the force and cogency of many passages will
become manifest. Again, חפץ, which has the sense of ‘an agreeable
occurrence,’ ‘a providence,’ and then generally of ‘any event,’ in this
book denotes a ‘_providential_ occurrence.’ Again, עמל is not exactly
toil, but the fatigue, distress, or anxiety that comes of it. It
differs from ענין, which is also anxiety, but that kind of anxiety which
comes of uncertainty as to a future result. Two most important words
are סכלות and הללות: the former is that kind of folly which has the
appearance of wisdom, clever folly, or foolish wisdom; the latter is
that kind of folly which is begotten of a false expectation of the
result, as in our expression ‘made a fool of.’ So again כבר is not an
adverb ‘already,’ but rather a substantive,――this present considered
as now existing. These technical words are all noticed as they occur,
and a sense given, the proof of the correctness of which is that
appropriate meaning is made in every place in which they occur. As
several are found nowhere else in Scripture, this is the only true
method of coming at their meaning. It is also worthy of notice that
these words occur usually seven or ten times, or some other round
or mystic number. This happens so frequently that it can hardly be
accidental, but I have seldom been able to trace any rule or law in
this circumstance. On the whole, however, it may be taken as an axiom
that when Koheleth uses a peculiar word, he intends to express a
peculiar idea, and his meaning must be sought accordingly. Careful
attention to this point clears up many difficulties.

Alliteration and paronomasia occur with great and characteristic
frequency, a proof surely that the book was intended to be preached
or delivered as an address. It is, of course, very difficult to give
these in the English version. Sometimes in the paraphrastic translation
this is attempted by means of rhymes and alliterations. I can hardly
pronounce these quite successful, and often have felt inclined to
return to a more literal rendering, but then this most characteristic
feature of the book would have been lost to the English reader. Every
one who has ever addressed an assembly knows how very telling these
hits are, and moreover they are of real importance to the commentator,
as bringing the words on which the alliteration depends into artificial
prominence. There is a danger, no doubt, that when once the mind is
aroused to this, that equivokes should be found where they were not
intended; but of this the reader must judge.

This perhaps is the best point at which to discuss the meaning of the
word Koheleth. In its present form and pointing קֹהֶלֶת is the active
feminine participle of Kal of the verb קהל, occurring as a verb only
in niphal and hiphil. The feminine noun occurs Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4,
‎‏קְהִלַּת――_i.e._ this word differently pointed――which the LXX. render
by συναγωγῆς. קְהִלַּת occurs Nehemiah v. 7, rendered ἐκκλησίαν. With
this before us it seems beside the mark to seek a meaning out of the
root קהל. According to the usage observable in this book, feminines
(we should prefer to call them abstracts) in ת differ from those in
‎‏ה――compare עמדת, chapter i. 4; the abstract in this form again becomes
as it were a concrete. Thus we should incline to indorse the view
enunciated by Preston, who considers the word to be represented by
‘collector’ or ‘concionator’ in Latin. Both these meanings we believe
are contained in the word, and it is quite consistent with what we know
of the style of Ecclesiastes to admit that both these meanings were
intended to be conveyed. The discourse is a collection of separate
but connected aphorisms on the transitoriness of human existence――the
author is thus a collector of them; and as the discourse was delivered
apparently when collected, he is a concionator or preacher also. The
word used by the LXX., ἐκκλησιαστὴς, occurs nowhere else, either in
the Old or New Testaments, so that the _precise_ meaning they affixed
to the word is unknown. In classical Greek it means preacher.

The repetition of a word, whether substantive or particle, in the
same sentence, of course gives emphasis to that word; to translate
accurately, therefore, when this occurs, we have to add some English
equivalent, such as ‘this’ or ‘as well,’ and so forth, see Commentary
_passim_. A careful attention to this rule will often considerably help
to clear up obscure passages.

ON THE PECULIAR RENDERINGS OF THE VERSION OF THE LXX.

The remark of Delitzsch on the translation of the LXX., affixed to the
Book of Psalms (Delitzsch on the Psalms, Clark’s Library, Edinburgh)
may be introduced here:――‘This translation, as being the oldest key
to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as
being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, and as an important
check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud
and Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature not
originating in Egypt, is invaluable.’ For this remark applies to the
rendering of Ecclesiastes in an equal, if not greater degree, and may
be offered as an excuse, if one be needed, for the comparatively large
space assigned to the discussion of the Septuagint renderings.

A peculiarity which meets us in this book is the occurrence of the
preposition σὺν followed by an accusative, and in one case a genitive,
and which seldom if ever occurs in other books. This apparently
trifling circumstance, which is usually treated as a barbarism, will
give the clue which will lead to some curious and interesting facts
connected with the methods of translation adopted by the LXX.

If we examine carefully and in detail the wording of the LXX. we can
hardly fail to be struck with the excessive care that is taken to
render in the exact order of the Hebrew――a remark which may be extended
to other portions of this version, the Book of Job being, however, a
striking exception, (and when there is any considerable departure, in
almost every instance hitherto examined a serious variation of text
in the different recensions of the LXX. will be found to occur.) In
Ecclesiastes this order is so strict that, with hardly an exception,
it would be possible to print the Greek text as it stands as an
interlinear translation. This most interesting point deserves further
investigation than appears as yet to have been given to it. My own
impression from this circumstance, is that the version of the LXX. was
made with the idea that those who used it had the Hebrew before them,
and this hypothesis, for in truth it is nothing more, will I think
group together more facts than any other suppositions which have been
adopted to explain these strange renderings met with in the LXX.,――as,
for example, variation of original text, wilful corruption on the
part of the translators, Hagadic influence (of which more presently),
and the like. The LXX. have executed their work so well, that
notwithstanding this restriction which they thus laid upon themselves,
we have a very good translation, which for many centuries was used as
the sole representative of the ancient Scriptures, and on which the
whole fabric of ancient theology was erected.

This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of the
LXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very
different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no
special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better
even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that the
LXX. do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give
the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example,
the word חפץ is rendered in chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 8 (7), viii. 6, by
πρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs, viz., chapter
v. 4 (3), xii. 1, 10, by θέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as
we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all
providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such
whatever. The LXX. use the one rendering or the other as best suits
the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words,
the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all
the passages in which they occur, the renderings of the LXX. become of
special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of the LXX.’s
renderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the
precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search,
and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in
every instance.

The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as
representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to
render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects
are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents
by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by
participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions
are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes
simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by
the pronoun, and by ὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on
any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by
a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all.
In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain
vaw, and ain ain verbs, the LXX. do not always follow the Masoretic
pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of the
LXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real,
and may be explained, for the most part, on the principle that the
translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words
in the original.

We must, however, bear in mind that the present text of the LXX. is
of all texts the most time-worn, and often requires correction. Most
providentially we do not depend on one recension; we have in existing
copies the remains of several, and we may make use of them to restore
the original readings. The problem in this case differs essentially
from that which meets us in revising the Greek text of the New
Testament. Here diplomatic evidence has not the same weight as there.
Emendations may be detected, even when better readings of the Hebrew,
by want of conformity to the Hebrew order (and the temptation to make
such kind of alterations, when the version was used independently,
would clearly be very great), or again a comparison of the various
readings will enable us to guess with tolerable confidence what the
Hebrew originally was. In this way, when the Hebrew text is doubtful,
we can ascertain the correct reading by searching for that common
origin from which the variants in the LXX. were derived, and we may
then turn round on the version with the help of the Hebrew, and show
how the changes successively arose. An instance of this will be found
at chapter x. 10; how far I have succeeded the reader must judge.
We must also bear in mind that what we should now denote by marginal
renderings are in the ancient versions inserted in the text. The
interlinear character of the version enables us to detect this: we
find two Greek words standing in place of a single Hebrew equivalent.
The result of all this, as applied in the Book of Ecclesiastes, is
to vindicate the accuracy of the received Hebrew text, and, in a less
degree, of the pointing and accentuation also. Only in a very few
instances is it needful to propose an emendation of the Hebrew text,
and that where the ancient versions are apparently unanimous in
requiring it.

There remains another point, however. Dr. Ginsburg (and from his
extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature no one is better
qualified to give an opinion) considers that Hagadic influence must
be taken largely into account in explaining difficult passages in
Ecclesiastes; amongst other points he notices the rendering of את
by σὺν, which has been referred to already. ‘Commentators,’ he says,
‘have been perplexed to account for this barbarism, and violation
of grammatical propriety, but a reference to Hagadic exegesis will
show that this Hebrew particle was looked up to as having a mystical
signification, because the two letters, א and ת, of which it is
composed, are the Alpha and Omega of the Hebrew alphabet. Hence the
anxiety of the translator to indicate this particle in Greek, when a
passage appeared to him to be fraught with special mysteries.’ But,
as he remarks, it is only in twenty-nine instances out of seventy-one
occurrences of this particle that it is so rendered by the LXX.
Moreover, Dr. Ginsburg has not shown that these passages are specially
mysterious. They are in fact neither more nor less so than some others
in which this particle is not so rendered. An examination of these
passages will show, we think convincingly, that what the LXX. wished
to do was to point out that את was emphatic and with the meaning
of ‘respect to,’ or the like, as will be seen by reference to the
Commentary, especially chapters ii. 17, iii. 17, vii. 26, viii. 8, 15.

The Hagadic influence, according to Dr. Ginsburg, is still more evident
in the peculiar rendering of chapter ii. 12, as well as chapters ii. 17,
iii. 15, iv. 17, v. 1, all which are fully treated in the Commentary,
and the renderings of the LXX. explained and elucidated, it is hoped
satisfactorily. So far from the true explanation of these renderings
being found in the Chaldee paraphrase, as Dr. Ginsburg imagines, that
version gives distorted interpretations of passages but partially
understood. Again, the gloss of the LXX. at chapter ii. 15 is shared
by the Syriac, and is a marginal reading; chapter ii. 17 is a verbatim
reading of the Hebrew in every particular; and the gloss at chapter
ii. 9 is too evidently foisted in from the margin to make it of much
value in any argument. See note there.

Holding as I do the paramount authority of the LXX., I have not
scrupled to follow them against the Masoretic interpretation when the
sense of a passage seemed to require it, and I deem it a sufficient
answer to any objections on this head, that the rendering proposed is
supported by the LXX. On the whole, however, these differences are,
as remarked above, not very great, and we have rather occasion for
surprise, not that there is here and there a divergence, but that on
the whole there is so substantial agreement. The pointing which we have
in our Hebrew Bibles embodies a most valuable and venerable tradition,
but in its present form younger by centuries than that furnished by
the rendering of the LXX. While, therefore, we admit its great value,
we ought not to make its authority absolute, and this is done to all
intents and purposes by those who reject without question the ancient
interpretation because it conflicts with the present pointing. No
language is too high to characterize our obligations to those Jewish
fathers who have guarded so faithfully that special trust committed
to them――the oracles of God. But the Synagogue is no more infallible
in matters of criticism than is the Church. Neither the Masorets nor
the LXX. are inspired, though inspiration has been by their respective
partisans vehemently claimed for both. Each party, also, has unduly
depreciated the other, and the Hebrew scholars have been for centuries
divided into punctists and anti-punctists. But as there is no royal
road to learning, so there is no short-cut to certainty; the whole
evidence, let it come from whence it may, must be diligently weighed
and compared. So far as the version of the LXX. is concerned, this is
not done until their errors, or supposed errors, have been at least
duly explained and accounted for, even when their renderings are
rejected.

OTHER VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY.

Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of the LXX. stands
the Syriac Peshito. This I have sometimes quoted in the present
Commentary, having considered it my duty to make myself acquainted
with this version, so that if I am not in a position to offer anything
of my own, I can follow other commentators, and test their accuracy.
The citations are made from the edition of Dr. Lee, published by the
Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway
between the LXX. and Masoretic text, agreeing sometimes with the one
and sometimes with the other. It is often assumed that the peculiar
renderings of the Syriac which agree with the LXX. against the
Masoretic rendering, arise from corrections of the former text by the
latter; this, however, is not proved. The existence of such an element
of correction may well be admitted, but it is only one out of many, and
in some cases we shall, I think, have reason to conclude that the sense,
set aside as of no critical value by some commentators, does in fact
embody the real meaning of the passage under discussion. See chapter
x. 10 for an instance of this.

The Vulgate is generally accessible; its value is subordinate as
compared with the above-mentioned versions, being only, as is well
known, corrected from the Hebrew by Jerome. Sometimes, however, the
evidence it affords of an ancient reading is all the more valuable on
this account. See the note at chapter x. 10.

The fragments of the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion are often of the very highest value, and diligent use
has been made of them. The edition used is that of Field, _Originis
Hexapla_, edition by Fridericus Field, Oxford, 1867, vol. ii. The
_Codex Syriaco Hexaplaris_, H. Middedorpf, Berlin, 1835, has also been
examined.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF THIS COMMENTARY.

Two translations of this book are here offered to the reader, the first,
dispersed through the notes, denoted by bold-faced type, is absolutely
literal, even to utter baldness, and rigidly follows the exact order
of the Hebrew. In the accompanying running commentary the construction
of the sentences is carefully pointed out, the rendering of the LXX.
noted where peculiar, and the attempt made in all cases to account for
the peculiarity, either by showing that they have preserved the true
interpretation, or else explaining how the error arose. The sense thus
obtained is embodied in the paraphrastic version printed at the head
of the page. There has been no attempt made to adopt, in this latter
translation, the phraseology of the Authorized Version; rather the
reverse, as it is not intended to be independent, but is to be regarded
as of the nature of an explanatory commentary or an English Targum upon
the text. It also seeks to render idea for idea rather than word for
word, and gives in every case the meaning which on the whole seemed
most probable, and squared best with the context. It attempts also to
represent equivokes and alliterations in the original, by corresponding
equivokes and alliterations――not necessarily in the equivalent words
of the translation,――and points out, by figures, italics, and other
typographical signs, instances of artificial arrangement of topics and
the like; see Chapters I. and II., etc. To the English reader a caution
is here needed. The very nature of such a version requires that all be
made to run quite smoothly; thus, however obscure the passage, a sense
is given, and difficulties are put out of sight. But after all this
only represents the meaning the commentator thinks most probable, and
he may be quite wrong, and altogether mistaken. Such a version is after
all a Targum――in other words, a well-meaning attempt at explanation,
with some amplification, of the sacred text. In dealing then with it
let the reader imitate the Jews of old, who, when they read the sacred
text itself, did so with every outward manifestation of respect and
deference; but when they came to read the Targum altered their manner,
and showed by posture and gesture that they clearly regarded this as
but a mere exposition of the Divine Word, and of no authority.

The following works are assumed to be easily accessible to English
readers:――_Ecclesiastes_, Theodore Preston, London, 1845; _Commentary
on Ecclesiastes_, Moses Stuart, New York, 1851; _Coheleth_, by
Christian D. Ginsburg, London, 1861; _Ecclesiastes or Koheleth_, by
Dr. Otto Zöckler, edited by Prof. Taylor Lewis, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870;
_Commentary on the Bible_, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London,
1868. The work of Dr. Ginsburg especially will be found indispensable.
Dr. Ginsburg has stated at length, and for the most part in the
writers’ own words, the different opinions of critics, Jewish and
Christian, who have written on this book. His vast reading and
erudition are thus made available for future scholars. Once for all, I
must acknowledge the deep obligation I am under to his work. If in many
of my renderings I am compelled to differ from him, I am not the less
indebted to him on that account. If I have really seen further than he
has, it is only because he has, so to speak, allowed me to mount on his
shoulders. Any one who takes the trouble to compare my work with his
will see that most of my renderings could have been supported by a name
of weight. If, however, I have the authority of the LXX. in my favour,
I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort
to such of the commentators in Dr. Ginsburg’s list, German and English,
as well as some published since the appearance of his book, as would be
likely to give additional light.

The work of Dr. Graetz, _Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger_, von
Dr. H. Graetz, Leipzig, 1871, did not come to hand until the larger
portion of this commentary was in type.

The texts made use of are those contained in the _Polyglotten Bibel,
zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitet_ von R. Stier, und R. G. W.
Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.

The following notation of MS. and Editions from the above work is
adopted in the commentary:――

A Alexandrine text.
A¹ Alexandrine Manuscript.
A² Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.
B Vatican text.
B¹ Vatican Manuscript.
B² Roman Edition, 1587.
C Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)
D Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)
E Editio Aldina, 1518.
F Complutensium Polyglot.
X Other MS. not especially named.

It may also be noticed that all citations are from chapter and verse
as in the Authorized Version; where these differ from the Hebrew, the
latter is added in a bracket――thus chapter v. 9 (8).

ECCLESIASTES.

CHAPTER I.

THE words of the Preacher, │ THE discourse of the Preacher,
the son of David, king of │ the son of David, king of
Jerusalem. │ Jerusalem.

I. (1.) =The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.=
The meaning of the term Koheleth, and the question of authorship of
the book, is discussed in the introduction. We have only to remark here
on the use of the word דבר as it occurs in this book in the technical
sense not only of a ‘word’ or ‘reason,’ but also including the matter
or thing which the word represents. Usually it refers to words,
reasonings, and matters connected with the mysteries of Providence――the
whole treatise itself being argumentative and didactic, discussing the
vanity, that is, the transitoriness, of human existence, as its topic.

│ SECTION I.――_The vanity or
│ evanescence of all things
│ human._
│
2 Vanity of vanities, │ Utterly evanescent, utterly
saith the Preacher, vanity of │ evanescent, saith the Preacher;
vanities; all _is_ vanity. │ the whole is evanescent.

(2.) =Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth; vanity of vanities= (very
emphatic), =the whole= (הכל, with the article giving a slightly
different notion to כל, the ‘whole collectively’ therefore; the word is
equivalent to the Greek τὸ πᾶν, with the limitation however to human
life in this world, as will become manifest in the course of the book)
is =vanity=, (הבל, that which is ‘evanescent’ or ‘transitory,’ but
never used in the modern sense of being frivolous or empty.) There
is nothing of scoffing epicureanism in this book; the life of man is
ever spoken of in the most serious and solemn tones. There is, indeed,
much sarcasm, but it never touches upon lightness or indifference; it
is always grave and solemn, and even when to superficial observation
appearing equivocal or sceptical, proves, on further examination, to
hide promises and hopes beneath its bitterness. This first verse may
be looked upon as the text or topic of the discourse; Koheleth next
proceeds to work out the argument suggested by it in detail.

3 What profit hath a man │ Is there any profitable
of all his labour which he │ result to Humanity in all
taketh under the sun? │ his cares, over which he ever
│ moils, in this hot work-day
│ world? [No, for]

(3.) =What is?= (expecting the answer no, and so nearly equivalent to a
denial) =the profit= (יתרון, a word peculiar to this book――occurs chapter
i. 3; ii. 11, 13 twice; iii. 9; v. 9 (8), 16 (15); vii. 12; x. 10,
11――_i.e._ ten times in all; it is a technical word, and is used to
signify that which _remains_ over and above after the act is performed,
and apart from its present results. Koheleth uses frequently these
nouns ending in ון――thus יתר ‘to extend,’ ‘run over,’ יתרון ‘remainder,’
‎‏זכר ‘remember,’ זכרון ‘remembrance,’ etc. These nouns are in their
nature abstracts, but differ from the ordinary abstracts; see chapter
i. 14) =to man= (לאדם, this word occurs in its different combinations
forty-eight times in this book, and always with the signification of
man as a member of the human race. There is a tone of personification
about the word similar to that which occurs in the expression ‘the
old _Adam_;’ when this generic character is not to be expressed, then
‎‏איש or אנוש is used instead; see chapters i. 8; ix. 14 and 15), =in all
his toil= (עמל, a favourite word of Koheleth, and used as frequently
in this book as in all the rest of Scripture put together. The exact
meaning to be affixed to it, and which, carefully kept in view, will
be found to explain more than one otherwise obscure passage, is that
toil, care, or anxiety which labour produces, and answers to the idea
contained in our metaphor ‘takes _pains_;’ see chapter ii. 20), =which
he toils at= (this is the first instance which occurs of the contracted
relative ש־ joined to the word. Koheleth uses also the full relative
‎‏אשר, but with a slight difference of meaning. The contracted relative
refers to the word only which it joins, and in case of verbs often
gives a subjunctive or optative meaning; the full relative refers
back to the whole idea or clause. Hence the meaning of this passage
is this, ‘Is there any abiding advantage to humanity of the pains
of his labouring in so far as he does take pains, or toils’) =under
the sun= (or in this present state of existence). The phrase תחת השמש
occurs twenty-five times in this book, and is always expressive of
a limitation. It shows that what is affirmed is to be understood as
confined to its relation to this sublunary existence only. The idea
implied is that of man toiling under the sun in the heat of the day
in the sweat of his brow (Genesis iii. 17), and earnestly desiring the
shadow (Job vii. 2), which shadow is yet the symbol of decaying life.
It is true that Ecclesiastes is never quoted in the New Testament,
but there are certainly several allusions to it, more or less direct;
one of these apparently occurs Revelation vii. 16: οὐ πεινάσουσιν
ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ πέσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν
καῦμα――‘They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither
shall the sun light on them by day, nor any heat.’ The Chaldee Targum
expresses this idea quaintly but forcibly: ‘What advantage is there
to a man after his death from all his labour which he laboured under
the sun in this world, except he studied the word of God, in order
to receive a good reward in the world to come from before the Lord
of the world?’ In order to remind the reader of this meaning of the
words ‘under the sun,’ I have whenever they occur paraphrased them
by ‘in this hot work-day world’――not that this paraphrase is quite
satisfactory, but it is the best I could find.

To answer the above question, Koheleth cites _eight_ different
instances; four from natural, and four from moral experience. Those
we might call the eight _un_beatitudes of this sermon.

4 _One_ generation passeth │ I. A generation comes, and
away, and _another_ generation │ that generation departs. But
cometh: but the earth abideth │ the earth the same abides.
for ever. │

(4.) =A generation comes= (_i.e._ proceeds; the word occurs five times
in the passage). =A generation sets= (using exactly the same word as
for the setting of the sun in the next verse), =but the earth to the
age abideth= (_i.e._ remains the same as it was ‘to the age’ לעלם――this
word is used in a technical sense, and occurs chapters i. 4, 10; ii. 16;
iii. 11, 14; ix. 6; and xii. 5 in this book. The LXX. render by αἰών,
which Bengel says is ‘sæculum præsens, mundus in sua indole cursu et
censu.’ Hengstenberg observes that it is not an absolutely endless
eternity, but only a future of unlimited length. Bengel’s definition,
‘the present period in its quality, course, and account,’ is exactly
what the word signifies in this book. It is to be noticed that
each instance of change is followed by a sentence which points out
that this change is resultless. In the first, the fluctuating and
fleeting generations or life-periods of man contrast with the absolute
endurance of an unchanged order of things). ‘The great mill-wheel of
existence only revolves for the same cogs to come uppermost again and
again.’――[Hamilton, _Royal Preacher_.]

5 The sun also ariseth, │ II. Bursts forth the sun,
and the sun goeth down, and │ and sets that sun again; and
¹hasteth to his place where │ wearily advancing, bursts
he arose. │ forth as he did before.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ panteth. │

(5.) =And rises= (_i.e._ ‘bursts out’ or ‘irradiates’) =the sun, and
sets the sun= (as ‘sun’ is repeated, the second is equivalent to that
same sun) =and towards his place panting= (this word ‘pant,’ שאף,
occurs Job vii. 2; Psalm lvii. 3; Psalm cxix. 131, and denotes earnest
desire: the metaphor is a very beautiful one in this context)――=rising=
(irradiating) =is he there=.

6 The wind goeth toward the │ III. Going southwards, and
south, and turneth about unto │ twisting northwards, twisting,
the north; it whirleth about │ twisting goes the blast; and
continually, and the wind │ so with all its twistings the
returneth again according to │ wind returns.
his circuits. │

(6.) =Going= (_i.e._ ‘walking,’ ‘proceeding,’ as in verse 4) =towards
the south= (the quarter of warm winds), and =turning round towards the
north= (the place of cold), =turning turns, going the wind= (there is
in the Hebrew a concourse of sibilant letters imitating the sound of
the wind, which is attempted to be rendered in the paraphrase), =and
in its turnings returns the wind= (that is, ever goes round in the
same circuits, as the Authorized Version translates). Thus we have an
allusion to the four cardinal points of the universe, North, South,
East, and West.

7 All the rivers run into │ IV. All the torrents are
the sea; yet the sea _is_ │ running towards the sea, that
not full; unto the place │ sea which never overflows;
from whence the rivers come, │ to the place where these
thither they ¹return again. │ torrents are hastening,
│ thither they are only
¹ _Hebrew_ return to go. │ returning to go back.

(7.) =All the torrents= (נחל, a mountain stream especially) =are going
to the sea, and the sea it is not full= (equivalent to ‘that sea which
is never filled or any fuller’), =to the place= to =which the rivers=
(contract relative, meaning these _same_ rivers) =are going, thence are
they returning to go back.= (So the LXX.; others with the Authorized
Version translate, ‘Thither they return again.’) It is to be remarked
that this fact is scientifically accurate in statement. The Targum
has the gloss that the rivers flow into the ocean which _surrounds
the world like a ring_, and that they return again through the
_subterranean channels_, but Koheleth knows nothing of such false
philosophy.

8 All things _are_ full of │ V. All matters are fatiguing;
labour; man cannot utter _it_: │ impossible for any one to
the eye is not satisfied with │ reason out. Never is the eye
seeing, nor the ear filled │ satisfied by seeing, nor ever
with hearing. │ the ear filled with sound.

(8.) =All the words= (with the article, and therefore generic;
‘matters’ or ‘things,’ in the technical sense of things reasoned about,
see verse 1) =are fatiguing= (so the LXX. and Vulgate; Ginsburg has
‘feeble;’ Preston, ‘in activity;’ and Hengstenberg, ‘all words become
weary;’ but the ancient verses make better sense with the context),
=not possible is it for a man= (not אדם here, but איש = ‘one,’ or ‘any
one’) =to utter= them (לדבר, ‘to speak rationally concerning them,’
and so to account for their existence or explain their nature. The
impossibility of exhausting a subject by talking or reasoning about
it is here the point, as is evident from the order of the words); =not
satisfied= (answering to the ‘not possible’ above) =is the eye with
seeing, and not is filled the ear by sound= (or by what it hears). So
then, while the consideration of any matter is pretty sure to produce
weariness, it is quite certain not to produce satisfaction.

9 The thing that hath been, │ VI. Whatever has been? ’tis
it _is that_ which shall be; │ just the same as will be; and
and that which is done _is_ │ whatever has been done? ’tis
that which shall be done: │ just the same as will be done.
and _there is_ no new _thing_ │ So there is nothing altogether
under the sun. │ new within this work-day world.

(9.) =What is that which has been?= it =is the same which will be; and
what is that which has been done?= it =is the same which will be done=
(so the LXX., literally following the Heb. text), =and there is nothing
all new under the sun.= The Authorized Version understands by this ‘no
new thing;’ but the peculiar position of this word ‘all’ seems to imply
that ‘nothing’ must be taken with some slight qualification,――nothing
morally new. The next verse admits material novelty.

10 Is there _any_ thing │ VII. [No doubt] there occurs
whereof it may be said, See, │ a matter such that people
this _is_ new? it hath been │ _say_, See, now this is really
already of old time, which was │ new. The present was it once
before us. │ in some age before our time.

(10.) =There is= (יש, which is so far different from היה that it assumes
the existence as a fact, ‘There really are matters which are called
new’) =a matter which= one =says= (contracted relative joined to the
verb, and giving an emphasis to it, equivalent therefore to our ‘of
which it may be _said_, indeed’) =see this new it is= (emphatic) =the
present= (כבר occurs eight times, viz., i. 10, ii. 12, 16, iii. 15
twice, iv. 2, vi. 10, and ix. 6, 7――in Ecclesiastes only; it is a
technical word used to denote the present state of things, that part
of the עלם or ‘age’ which is now in existence. In the later Hebrew and
Syriac it is used as an adverb, ‘already,’ but that is not its use here.
This remark is the more important because it is one of those so-called
Aramaic words, the occurrence of which is supposed to indicate the late
period of this book’s composition. A careful observance of its real
import will throw considerable light on several very obscure passages.
Generally, it may be taken for granted that if Koheleth uses a new
word or form not known in other parts of the Scriptures, it is because
he desires to indicate a new idea.) =It was to the ages which= (full
relative, referring back, therefore, to the whole sentence) =were from
before us= (as we have ages in the plural, followed by a singular verb,
‎‏היה, the meaning is some one of the ages). This thing which is said to
be new is really one of those forgotten matters which existed in one or
other of the eras which were before our time.

11 _There is_ no remembrance │ VIII. There is no remembrance
of former _things_; neither │ of former matters; and so also
shall there be _any_ │ with regard to subsequent ones
remembrance of _things_ that │ which will be, there will be no
are to come with _those_ that │ remembrance with those who will
shall come after. │ succeed them.

(11.) =There is nothing= of =remembrance= (or memorial) =to former=
events (or persons) =and in addition to succeeding= events =which
will be. There will not be to them= (emphatic) =a remembrance= (the
repetition of this word shows it to be the prominent word of the
sentence) =amongst those which shall be to= (_i.e._ belonging to)
the =last= of all (so the LXX.) We have here the feminine form, אחרנה.
Koheleth usually expresses the abstracts by this form, and so here.
Thus, then, we find that history always repeats itself: not so, however,
that its events can be anticipated, but always so that its teachings
may be forgotten.

This then forms the first division of the book. By these eight
instances Koheleth proves the existence of unceasing toilsome care
and resultless progression in all human things. He proceeds in the
next place to give his own personal experience, in the form of an
autobiography to the same effect. All commentators, even those who deny
that Solomon himself was the author of this book, are agreed that he is
the hero, and that his life and experience form the groundwork of what
is here set before us.

│ SECTION II.――_Containing a
│ more formal discussion of the
│ problem of human existence,
│ drawn from the Preacher’s own
│ observation and experience._
│
12 ¶ I the Preacher was king │ Now, I myself, the Preacher,
over Israel in Jerusalem. │ was king over Israel in
│ Jerusalem,

(12.) =I= (emphatic) =Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.=
Ginsburg supposes that by this declaration that he _was_ king, he
intends to imply that he was so no longer; but not only does the LXX.
render by an imperfect, but the same word occurs in precisely the same
form at Exodus ii. 22, and clearly at the time there mentioned Moses
continued to be a stranger in Midian. The object in stating this fact
is rather to show that as a king he possessed peculiar facilities for
making the investigation, an account of which follows.

13 And I gave my heart to │ and I took the greatest pains
seek and search out by wisdom │ to seek out and to investigate
concerning all _things_ that │ by means of wisdom everything
are done under heaven: this │ that is done within the limits
sore travail hath God given │ of this world; how it is a
to the sons of man ¹to be │ painful uncertainty appointed
exercised therewith. │ of God to the human race that
│ they should be distracted with
¹ _Or_, to afflict them. │ it.

(13.) =And I set my heart= (gave great pains to, or thought much on,
see i. 17, vii. 21, viii. 9, 10; Daniel x. 12; 1 Chronicles xxii. 19)
=to inquiring= (דרש, being used of something lost or hidden, Genesis
xxv. 22, Deuteronomy xxii. 2) =and to investigating= (תור, refers to
spying out or searching, Numbers xiii. 15, chapter vii. 25) =in wisdom=
(the Authorized Version considers that wisdom was the means by which
inquiry was made) =concerning= (על, over) =all which= (equivalent to
‘all that which’) =is done= (but being niphal it has an objective sense,
and includes what is suffered) =under the heavens= (this formula occurs
chapter ii. 3, and iii. 1, and is of larger import than under the
sun) =it is= (‘I mean that’ is the equivalent expression in English)
=uncertainty= (ענין, this is another technical word, it occurs eight
times, chapter i. 13, ii. 23, 26, iii. 10, iv. 8, v. 3 (4), viii. 16,
and a careful comparison of places will show that the meaning is
‘uncertainty,’ accompanied with ‘anxiety’ as to what is to happen in
the future) =which is an evil= (for it is without the article) =given=
of =God= (without the article; because God is here used personally, it
is nominative to נתן of course, but as the nominative follows the verb,
this is the best way of rendering in this case) =to the sons of the
Adam= (the ‘whole human race’ is the meaning of this form), that they
may be =made anxious= (LXX. τοῦ περισπᾶσθαι) =therewith= (emphatic).

14 I have seen all the works │ I perceived with respect to
that are done under the sun; │ all the actions whatsoever, in
and, behold, all _is_ vanity │ so far as they are performed
and vexation of spirit. │ within this work-day world,
│ that they are certainly all of
│ them (1.) evanescent, (2.) a
│ vexation of spirit,

(14.) =I have seen= (I have observed, that is) =with respect to all
actions= (את is here emphatic as standing first) =which are performed=
(niphal and contracted relative, hence having the meaning in so far as
they are or may be done) =under the sun= (for without this limitation
the above proposition would not be true), =and behold= (asserting a
matter of fact patent to all) =the whole= (with the article and in its
usual sense, see chapter i. 2) is =a vanity= (_i.e._ an instance of
something evanescent) =and a vexation of spirit= (רעות, occurs seven
times in this book, viz., chapters i. 14, ii. 11, 17, 26, iv. 4, 6,
and vi. 9; רעיון occurs three times, i. 17, ii. 22, iv. 16. These words
have usually been regarded as absolutely synonymous, and hitherto
the difference of meaning has not been noticed; but there is a slight
difference, as a comparison of places will show. The exact sense to
be attached to them is a matter of dispute, and ‘a windy notion,’
‘striving after the wind,’ have been proposed, but the rendering of
the LXX., προαίρεσις, ‘distraction,’ represents the meaning best. With
regard to רעות we may notice that it is formed quite regularly from רעה,
which is ‘evil,’ in the sense of something that ‘hurts’ or ‘offends,’
and is in the nature of a collective plural; so do we account at once
for the peculiar pointing and for the rendering of the LXX. On the
other hand, רעיון has, as nouns with this termination usually have,
a more subjective meaning; the distinction between the two is that
between ‘vexations of’ and ‘vexing of’ spirit; thus in verse 17,
where the trouble came from his own spirit, caused by his inability to
explain the difficulty which confronted him in his argument, Koheleth
uses the subjective form).

15 _That which is_ crooked │ (3.) a perplexity which it is
cannot be made straight: and │ impossible to set right, (4.)
that which is ¹wanting cannot │ a defect which it is equally
be numbered. │ impossible to account for.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ defect. │

(15.) =A crookedness= (occurs chapters vii. 13, xii. 3, and Amos
viii. 5, whence it appears that the precise meaning is moral obliquity)
=not enabled to be set in order= (occurs chapter i. 15, vii. 18, xii. 9,
only), =a defect= (occurs here only, but see Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 57,
where the root is used of famine, and 1 Kings xvii. 16, to denote the
failure of the oil) =not enabled= (repeated, hence we must render ‘it
is _equally_ impossible’) =to be numbered= (infinitive plural niphal).
The meaning of this verse has been very much disputed, but if it be
considered as the sequel to what went immediately before, the sense
will be quite plain. We may discern in it a fourfold description of
human life, in respect of its cares and anxieties and uncertainties,
the first point being (i.) that this care is for something evanescent;
(ii.) that it is vexatious; (iii.) and then this anxiety is useless,
because life is so perverted as to be beyond the possibility of being
set in order by any care of ours; (iv.) and so defective that no
account can be given which would set it right: ‘which of you by taking
thought can add one cubit to his stature?’

16 I communed with mine own │ I reasoned over the matter
heart, saying, Lo, I am come │ with my own heart to this
to great estate, and have │ effect. I who have, it appears,
gotten more wisdom than all │ become greater and more
_they_ that have been before │ advanced in wisdom than any who
me in Jerusalem: yea, my │ were before me in Jerusalem,
heart ¹had great experience │ and experienced over the widest
of wisdom and knowledge. │ extent of wisdom and knowledge,
│
¹ _Hebrew_ had seen much. │

(16.) =Reasoned I myself together with my heart to say= (as reasoned
stands first, this is the subject of the whole, and the words ‘to say,’
‎‏לאמר, are the usual formula of introduction of the thing said; they are
equivalent to our ‘to this effect.’ This then is Koheleth’s reasoning,
the result of which is to be given), =I behold= (stating it as an
admitted and patent fact) =I have been made great, and I have been
added= to in =wisdom above all which were before me in Jerusalem, and
my heart has seen the much= (with the article expressed; equivalent
therefore to very much, or as much as possible of) =wisdom and
knowledge.=

17 And I gave my heart │ and have set my heart earnestly
to know wisdom, and to know │ to know wisdom, and to know
madness and folly: I perceived │ false successes from real acts
that this also is vexation of │ of prudence, know but this: it
spirit. │ is simply vexing one’s spirit;

(17.) =And I have given my heart in order to know wisdom= (that is,
he made wisdom his special study and object) =and the knowledge of=
(‘know’ being repeated rises into special prominence, and hence the
meaning is to know wisdom, or to be wise enough to recognise) =false
expectations and prudences=. (This passage is one of great difficulty,
but the exact sense will become apparent on investigating the meaning
of the two words הוללות and שכלות; now הוללות occurs chapter i. 17, ii. 12,
vii. 25, ix. 3, and pointed with Shurek at x. 13, and is peculiar to
Ecclesiastes. It is a technical word, and is correctly translated
‘folly,’ but it is that kind of folly which displays itself in false
joy. The future poel from which this noun is derived occurs Job xii. 17,
chapter vii. 7, Isaiah xliv. 25; and the participle at chapter ii. 2,
Psalm cii. 89. Thus we see the connexion between this sense and the
more ordinary one of ‘praise;’ it is the ‘bepraised’ used in a bad
sense. The word שכלות occurs here only, but it is rendered by the LXX.
ἐπιστήμη, and by the Syriac (‡ Syriac), compare also Genesis xli. 33,
with the meaning ‘prudence,’ and with this agrees the later Hebrew. Now
these meanings make consistent sense. Koheleth wished to know wisdom
and the knowledge of folly and prudence; in other words, to have a
wisdom which could tell the one from the other. Thus the LXX. render
‎‏הל״ by παραβολὰς, which A² has altered into περιφορὰν; this apparently
very strange rendering is thus intelligible enough, especially to those
who had the Hebrew before them. To alter the text to סכלות, as some
have proposed, is not even to cut the Gordian knot, for with the true
meaning of this word, ‘clever-folly,’ ‘false-wisdom,’ no better sense
will be made, although it is quite possible that שכ״ may have been
chosen for the equivoke it gives, not even differing in sound, if the
pointing can be trusted, from סכ״. The truth is that so much of our
elaborate wisdom and best plans are but elaborate mistakes, that to
attempt to judge the one from the other is a hopeless task. Hence then
the following) =I know= (this is the fourth time this word occurs in
the clause, thus it is brought out with the very strongest prominence,
and gives the meaning ‘what I do know is’) =that even this= (שגם,
compare places chapter ii. 15, viii. 14, has a peculiar meaning,
expressive of surprise that this should be so) really =is vexing of
spirit= (רעיון, not רעות, as above; because in this case the vexation is
subjective,――the idea conveyed by the whole passage being ‘what I do
know as the result of my wisdom and knowledge being just even this,
that it is only a vexing of the spirit’). It may be observed that רעיון
occurs in the Chaldee of Daniel――see Daniel ii. 29, 30; iv. 19 (16);
v. 6, etc., always in the sense of a ‘_painful_ reflection,’ but in
later Chaldee and Syriac as ‘a reflection’ of any kind. As the sense
in which Koheleth uses the word is the nearest to the root-meaning, is
it not an evidence, so far, of earlier composition of his book?

18 For in much wisdom │ because, in increasing wisdom,
_is_ much grief: and he │ there is an increase also of
that increaseth knowledge │ disappointment, and what adds
increaseth sorrow. │ to one’s knowledge adds to
│ one’s sorrow.

(18.) =For= (introducing a reason for this conclusion as follows) =in
much wisdom is much grief= (grief in the sense of ‘vexation,’ caused by
disappointment――see chapter ii. 23, vii. 3, 9, xi. 10, 1 Samuel i. 6.
The LXX. translate by γνῶσις, ‘knowledge’! Is it possible that they
intended to refer to Genesis ii. ♦17, using γνῶσις in a bad sense?)
=and= he that =increases knowledge increases sorrow= (chapter ii. 23;
Exodus iii. 7, of the Israelitish sorrows at the hands of their
task-masters). ‘In a world like this much science is much sorrow,
for it is the knowledge of penury, the statistics of starvation, the
assurance that our case is desperate.’――[Hamilton.]

♦ “xvii.” replaced with “17”

Even the wisdom of Solomon having failed to find any solution of the
problem of human anxiety, he next tries mirth, but with no better
success. This experiment takes only two verses to record, for it was
but soon over.

CHAPTER II.

I SAID in mine heart, Go │ SAID then I in my heart,
to now, I will prove thee │ Come now, I will try thee with
with mirth, therefore enjoy │ mirth, and so get a sight of a
pleasure: and, behold, this │ real-good; but see now, this is
also _is_ vanity. │ altogether an evanescent thing.
│ Of laughter, I said Delirium:

II. (1.) =I said, even I= (the personal pronoun is not redundant, it
indicates that Koheleth is recording his own experience), =in my heart=
(this formula usually introduces in this book a thought more specious
than true), =Come now, I will try thee with mirth and see into good=
(_i.e._ still addressing his heart, ‘to see a real good;’ טוב is
used in this book as a technical word, like _bonum_ in the _summum
bonum_); =and behold= (stating a manifest fact) =also this= (emphatic,
signifying this same mirth) is a =vanity= (an evanescent thing; joy or
mirth then is too short-lived to be considered a real good).

2 I said of laughter, _It │ and of mirth, What will _that_
is_ mad: and of mirth, What │ do?
doeth it? │

(2.) =To laughter I said, Madness= (that which is made mad, see note to
chapter i. 17), and =to pleasure= (or mirth), =What doth that do?= (as
this expects the answer No, it is very nearly equivalent to ‘It _does_
nothing.’) (The Syriac reads here (‡ Syriac), ‘What is the usefulness,’
‘gratification,’ or ‘delight’? It seems then as if the translators of
this version recognised a play upon the words ‎‏מה הולל, ‘what a folly,’
and מהולל, ‘befooled,’――this being one of those equivokes in which
Koheleth delights. The LXX. render verbatim, as is their custom,
τὶ τοῦτο ποῖεις; ‘why doest thou this?’ but possibly with the same
intention.)

Koheleth next tries material enjoyment. The meaning of the following
passage has been much disputed; we shall follow the rendering suggested
by the LXX., which gives clear and intelligible sense.

3 I sought in mine heart │ I tried with my heart to
¹to give myself unto wine, yet │ allure as wine does one’s flesh
acquainting mine heart with │ (that heart, however, being
wisdom; and to lay hold on │ conducted with wisdom), and so
folly, till I might see what │ get a hold over _false_ wisdom,
_was_ that good for the sons │ so that I might see thereby
of men, which they should do │ where lies the real good to
under the heaven ²all the days │ the children of men, when they
of their life. │ are working in _this_ world, as
│ the tale of their daily lives.
¹ _Hebrew_ to draw my flesh │ [Accordingly]
with wine. │
│
² _Hebrew_ the number of the │
days of their life. │

(3.) =I investigated with my heart= (or _in_ my heart; but the
former makes better sense. His heart was the medium through which the
investigation was made. He wanted to see if material enjoyment would
satisfy his heart, _i.e._ the emotional part of his nature) =in order
to a drawing with wine= (the LXX. render ὡς οἶνον, ‘_as_ wine,’ but
they probably did not read otherwise than our present text, for this
_as_ represents the את which follows) =as to my flesh= (the meaning
of the Hebrew is that he drew or enticed with wine with respect to his
flesh, and that hence his object in using the wine was to entice the
flesh. The rendering of the LXX. is _ad sensum_, preserving also a
rendering of each word), =and my heart led= (_i.e._ as a man leads an
animal, Psalm lxxx. 1, Isaiah xi. 6. As ‘heart’ is repeated, we have
the meaning ‘that same heart’) =with wisdom= (because unless he enjoyed
wisely he would not enjoy at all) =and= (repeated in the same clause,
equal therefore to ‘and so’) =to lay hold of false wisdom= (סכלוּת,
occurs chapters ii. 3, 12, 13, vii. 25, x. 1, 13, and is peculiar to
this book. The LXX. render εὐφροσύνην ‘pleasure,’ which, however A²
alters to ἀφροσύνη, ‘folly,’ the reason of which will appear presently.
The meaning of the root סכל is to ‘play,’ or ‘act the fool,’ and in
this respect differs from כסל, which has the idea of ‘stupidity,’
and in the hiphil form, ‘made stupid,’ or ‘befooled.’ In all the
ten places in which the root סכל occurs in other parts of Scripture,
we find the meaning of elaborateness and subtilty as well as folly;
compare 1 Samuel xiii. 13, Saul’s burnt-offering in the absence of
Samuel; 2 Samuel xxiv. 10; 1 Chronicles xxi. 8, David’s numbering the
people; 2 Chronicles xvi. 9, Asa’s reliance on Syria; 2 Samuel xv. 31,
Ahithophel’s counsel; similarly Isaiah xliv. 25, where knowledge is
said to be misused; so also סָכָל, occurs Jeremiah iv. 22, v. 21, has
evidently the same shade of meaning. It is hard to find a single word
which will render it; ‘foolish wisdom’ or ‘clever follies’ are the best
combinations that occur. It will be seen also, in referring to the
lexicon, that the LXX., who translate by εὐφροσύνη, apparently use
the word occasionally in a sinister aspect, see Proverbs xxx. 32, Sira
xiii. 8. The Syriac here reads (‡ Syriac word) (see i. 17), ‘prudence,’
‘intelligence,’ contrary to its interpretation in other places. On
the whole, however, it is not difficult to see why the LXX. rendered
as they did. That this pleasure was of a bad kind, or deceptive, the
sequel shows, but it may be doubted whether their rendering preserved
the meaning of סכ״, even if, which is not impossible, they themselves
understood it). =Until I= should =see where= (in the sense of
whereabouts, see 1 Samuel ix. 8) is =this good to the sons of Adam,
which= (full relative, referring back to the whole idea, equivalent
therefore to ‘what _good_ it is which’) =they do under the sun the
number of the days of their lives= (this phrase occurs chapter ii. 3,
v. 18 (17), vi. 12, as ‘the tale,’ or ‘account of the days,’ of their
lives; an additional limitation to the words ‘under the sun’). In
making this experiment he began to _work_ and _toil_ more than ever.

4 I made me great works; I │ I increased my works.
builded me houses; I planted │
me vineyards: │ (1.) I built for _myself_
│ houses.
│
│ (2.) I planted for _myself_
│ vineyards.

(4.) =I increased my work, I built for myself= (this emphatic ‘myself’
occurs eight times in the passage, and is therefore its key-word)
=houses, I planted for myself vineyards.=

5 I made me gardens and │ (3.) I made for _myself_
orchards, and I planted trees │ gardens and parks, and planted
in them of all _kind of_ │ in them fruit-trees of every
fruits: │ kind.

(5.) =I made for myself gardens and parks, and planted in them trees of
every kind of fruit.= It should have been mentioned that פרדס is also
considered to afford an indication of late composition. It is said to
be a Persian word; it occurs, however, Nehemiah ii. 8; Canticles iv. 10.
The word admits of Semitic derivation, from פרד, ‘to divide,’ ‘cut
off in portions,’ ‘lay out.’ If it be really an exotic, no date of
introduction is more probable than that of Solomon. It is also to be
noted that in the context it _follows_ the word ‘gardens,’ which is
quite natural if it were intended to denote a foreign luxury recently
introduced.

6 I made me pools of water, │ (4.) I made for _myself_
to water therewith the wood │ reservoirs with which to
that bringeth forth trees: │ irrigate meadows and growing
│ copses.

(6.) =I made for myself pools of water to irrigate from them the
meadows shooting forth trees.= (This, which contains ‘for myself’
_four_ times, the first _half_ of the seven, consists of an enumeration
of immoveable objects, or what the law calls real property, the others
which follow are moveables or personal.)

7 I got _me_ servants and │ (5.) I purchased slaves and
maidens, and had ¹servants │ maidens, and had for _myself_
born in my house; also I had │ home-born servants, besides
great possessions of great and │ herds of great and small
small cattle above all that │ cattle, more numerous than
were in Jerusalem before me: │ any of my predecessors in
│ Jerusalem.
¹ _Hebrew_ sons of my house. │

(7.) =I obtained slaves and maidens, and sons of my house= (home-born
slaves, that is) =were= belonging to =myself, besides possessions of
herd and flock; many= such were belonging =to myself; more than all who
were before me in Jerusalem.=

8 I gathered me also silver │ (6.) I procured for _myself_
and gold, and the peculiar │ silver and gold and precious
treasure of kings and of │ objects of every kingdom and
the provinces: I gat me │ province.
men-singers and women-singers, │
and the delights of the sons │ (7.) I obtained for _myself_
of men, _as_ ¹musical │ men-singers and women-singers,
instruments, and that of all │ every delight that man can
sorts. │ enjoy, to the very ecstasy of
│ ravishment.
¹ _Hebrew_ musical │
instruments and │
instruments. │

(8.) =I gathered for myself, moreover, silver and gold, and the
peculiar treasure of kings and the provinces. I made for myself= (_i.e.
_ procured) =men-singers and women-singers, the delights of the sons of
men, outpouring and outpourers.= (The different meanings given to these
two last words, שדה ושדות, which occur here only, are various, scarcely
a commentary or version agreeing. The LXX. translate a ‘butler’ and
‘female cup-bearers,’ the Vulgate ‘pitchers and vases,’ Ginsburg ‘a
concubine and concubines’; but the most probable etymology seems to
give the idea of ‘overflowing’ to the word in some sense or other. It
is possible then to take the words generally, and interpret them as
referring to the overflow, not only of the generous wines, but of all
the delights of which wine is a type, as in the words ‘The feast of
reason and the flow of soul,’ or like Milton’s――

‘Did ever mortal mixture of earth’s mould
Breathe such divine enchanting ravishment?’

The arrangement of these different objects of pleasure is somewhat
artificial, as will be seen on examining the grouping.)

9 So I was great, and │ So I was great and increased
increased more than all that │ more than all that were ever
were before me in Jerusalem: │ before me in Jerusalem, yet
also my wisdom remained with │ notwithstanding my wisdom
me. │ remained fast with _myself_,

(9.) =And I was great= (rightly the Authorized Version, ‘_so_,’
referring back to verse 4) =and increased more than all= (_all_ now
becomes the key-word, which occurs seven times) =which was= (singular,
giving the sense than ‘any was’) =before me in Jerusalem; also=
(‎‏אף, affirms strongly, see Job iv. 19, ‘but beside,’ for without this
provision of a wise enjoyment the experiment was necessarily a failure:)
=my wisdom remained= (_i.e._ stood; it is usual to say that עמדה is
feminine to agree with חכמה; perhaps it would be equally correct to say
that it was an instance of two abstract ideas in apposition, giving the
sense ‘was still a thing standing’) =with myself= (emphatic, and the
eighth repetition of this word).

10 And whatsoever mine eyes │ and _all_ my eyes desired I
desired I kept not from them, │ kept not from them, nor did I
I withheld not my heart from │ deny my heart even one of _all_
any joy; for my heart rejoiced │ its joys: for this heart of
in all my labour: and this was │ mine did rejoice in my toils,
my portion of all my labour. │ and this was what I procured
│ for _all_ my toil.

(10.) =And all which asked mine eyes I did not restrain= (or keep back;
see Genesis xxvii. 36, Numbers xi. 17, for the meaning, the only other
instances where it occurs in Kal.) =from them= (emphatic), =I did not
deny my heart from all rejoicing, for my heart rejoiced from all my
toil= (_i.e._ there was a certain kind of pleasure derived from doing
all this), =and this was my portion= (‘lot’ or ‘inheritance’ from all
my toil; equal to our ‘this was all I obtained for my pains’).

11 Then I looked on all │ So I turned to look on _all_
the works that my hands had │ my work my hand had wrought,
wrought, and on the labour │ and _all_ my toil which I
that I had laboured to do: │ had moiled and done, and lo!
and, behold, all _was_ vanity │ that ALL was――evanescent, and
and vexation of spirit, and │ vexation of spirit, and nothing
_there was_ no profit under │ of profit in this hot work-day
the sun. │ world.

(11.) =I turned myself= (פנה differs from סבב; the former is ‘to turn
round in order to look,’ the latter is to ‘go round in order to do.’
The distinction is not without importance) =in all my works which
worked my hands, and in my toil which I had toiled to work= (notice
the occurrence of these words――work, work, toil, toil), =and behold=
(a manifest and indisputable conclusion) =the whole was vanity and
vexation of spirit, and there was nothing of profit= (_i.e._ over and
above the slight amount of present pleasure which he obtained) =under
the sun.= (It is especially worthy of remark that while Koheleth found
some small pleasure _in_ work, he found none _from_ it. Take, oh men,
to your curse kindly, but a curse it is!)

12 ¶ And I turned myself to │ Then I turned myself again
behold wisdom, and madness, │ to perceive wisdom in regard
and folly: for what _can_ the │ to [its power of detecting]
man _do_ that cometh after the │ _false_ hopes and _false_
king? ¹_even_ that which hath │ prudence, for how is any man
been already done. │ to enter upon the results of
│ that plan which he may have
¹ _Or_, in those things │ made beforehand?
which have been already │
done. │

(12.) =And I turned= (this coming immediately after a similar
expression, verse 11, rises into emphasis; it equals our ‘again
I turned’), =I myself= (emphatic, it was, as above, a personal
experience), =to see wisdom and self-deceptions and also false
successes= (the meaning of this passage most probably is, that Koheleth
desired to see wisdom in conjunction with those two kinds of folly
which he denotes respectively by הוללות, false expectations or hopes,
see chapter i. 17, and סכלות, false wisdom, that kind of folly which
is so either through ignorance or sin, but has to all appearance
the semblance of wisdom, see chapter ii. 3. If he could succeed in
accomplishing this, he might by his wisdom avoid the mistakes into
which men fall). =For= (this must introduce a reason) =what?= (Genesis
xx. 10, מָה, Genesis iv. 10, מֶה, both forms being similar in use) is
=the man= (with the article; generic therefore, and equivalent to ‘what
is the man?’) =who enters= (but as this is the contracted relative,
it is equivalent to ‘that he should enter’) =after= (but the word is
strictly speaking a noun plural in regimen, and means ‘that which comes
after,’ ‘the sequel of’) =the king= (this the LXX. render by βουλῆς,
the reasons of which we will discuss presently). =With respect to
which= (for the את is emphatic, hence some of the recensions of the LXX.
read σὺν τὰ ὅσα) =the present= (the present state of things, כבר in its
usual meaning, which it has everywhere in Ecclesiastes, see chapter
i. 10) =they make it= עשבהו, third person plural with the affix, which
the LXX. refer back to המלך. The meaning of this passage has been much
disputed, and our difficulties are not diminished by the very strange
rendering of the LXX., which is usually dismissed by commentators as
erroneous; an explanation, however, of this rendering will probably
clear up the difficulty. We must first notice the corrupt state of
the present text of the LXX. The Alexandrine reads ὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος
ἐπελεύσεται ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν; E. X. read πάντα
ὅσα; F. X. σὺν τὰ ὅσα; B. X. ἐποίησεν; and X. αὐτή; Aquila reads
ὃς ἐπιλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; Symmachus, τί δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἵνα
παρακολουθήση βουλῇ; Theodotion, ὃς ἐλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; but,
as Field remarks (Hexapla, p. 384), it is doubtful whether the Syriac
text reads (‡ Syriac word), ‘king,’ or (‡ Syriac word), ‘counsel.’ In
the same way, Theodotion reads σὺν τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν.

We must observe that all these versions, without exception, omit to
notice כבר, which everywhere else is noted by ἤδη, being content with
τὰ ὅσα or σὺν τὰ ὅσα. The explanation of these difficulties seems to
be that המלך was probably intended to be equivocal. It is, to say the
least, not impossible that it had, even in Solomon’s time, the meaning
of ‘counsel,’ which attaches to it as a usual signification in Aramaic;
if so, המלך means _the_ counsel, and of course has the idea of rule as
well. Castell gives as the meaning of (‡ Syriac word), ‘Intellectum,
Consilium dedit,’ vel ‘inivit,’ ‘Consultavit,’ ‘Promisit,’ ‘Pollicitus
est;’ thus we must understand it to mean, ‘plans formed and intended
to be carried out.’ The question then which Koheleth asks is this, ‘Who
is the man who will enter upon――as we say, _carry out_――his plans with
respect to that which in the present moment he makes them or devises
them;’ in other words, can he carry out what he now devises, and can
_any_ man do this out of the number of human creatures who make these
plans? This is the reason of the distributive plural which the best
recensions of the LXX. preserve. The equivoke involved in the meaning
‘king’ is obvious. Koheleth himself is, of course, _the_ king: could
any one do better than he? It must be allowed that this meaning makes
excellent sense with the context, and violates no Hebrew grammar. If,
however, I have failed in giving a real interpretation of this most
difficult passage, I may be excused a conjecture which is as plausible
as many that have been advanced on this point. The corruptions of the
old versions may be explained by the fact that the equivoke was lost
so soon as readers ceased to have the Hebrew text before them, and
hence the attempt to better their text. This most obscure passage may
perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of the word כבר
and other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or abstract
occurs Genesis xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7, and 2 Kings v. 19, joined
with ארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb
occurs in hiphil, Job xxxv. 16, xxxvi. 31, translated ‘multiplied,’
‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristic _jud̄_
inserted――Job viii. 2, xv. 10, etc.; Isaiah x. 13, xvii. 12, etc.――in
the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent
comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of
‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to
time, the LXX. render ἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also
the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon, _s. voc_. The meaning
then of the word is, the ‘_complete_ present.’ With regard to the
use of the root מלך in the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew,
viz. Nehemiah v. 7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Daniel iv. 27 (24).
This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair
inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is
‘to counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one
sent.’ These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns
round to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false
hopes and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can
tell the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘_who_ is
the man,’ etc., equivalent to――‘in what way can humanity enter upon the
results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’――the equivoke being, we believe,
intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to
the sentence――‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’
It would have been better if the word =with= had been printed in the
notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period,
though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back
through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered
into English thus――‘In respect of which he at present takes that
counsel.’ The LXX., contrary to their custom, omit ἤδη, because it is
perhaps sufficiently included in ἐπελεύσεται, or because τὰ ὅσα ἤδη
ἐποίησαν αὐτήν would not have been intelligible. It is evident this all
squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with
all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between
this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate
only to be disappointed in his successor.

13 Then I saw ¹that wisdom │ Now, I have myself perceived
excelleth folly, as far as │ that there must be a profit to
light excelleth darkness. │ wisdom over false prudence as
│ great as the profit of light
¹ _Hebrew_ that there is an │ over darkness.
excellency in wisdom more │
than in folly, etc. │

(13.) =And I have seen, I= have (with the emphatic I again, as a
personal experience) =that there is= (_i.e._ that there really is),
=a profit to wisdom above folly= (these same _elaborate_ mistakes which
look so like wisdom) =as the profit of the light above the darkness=.
(Here profit is repeated, hence the meaning is ‘as great as the profit
of light above darkness.’) =The wise, his eyes are in his head, but the
fool= (_i.e._ the ‘deceived fool’――notice the hiphil form――equivalent
to the befooled, but not necessarily by others――by himself also) =in
darkness walks= (hence a wise man ought to be as much better off than
a fool as a sighted man is better than one blind, but experience does
not confirm this conclusion); =and I know also, I= (emphatic), =that
the hap= (_i.e._ the result or what occurs) =is one happening= (present
here as opposed to participial noun) =to all of them= (_i.e._ both wise
and fools alike――equivalent in our idiom, ‘precisely the same result
occurs to all’).

14 The wise man’s eyes _are_ │ The wise has eyes in his head,
in his head; but the fool │ the befooled is wandering in
walketh in darkness: and I │ the dark; yet I know, as the
myself perceived also that one │ result of my own experience,
event happeneth to them all. │ that the event to which both
│ attain is just alike, so I
15 Then said I in my heart, │ reasoned with myself thus:
As it happeneth to the fool, │ Exactly the same event as
so it ¹happeneth even to me; │ happens to one befooled has
and why was I then more wise? │ happened to me, and therefore
Then I said in my heart, that │ why should I make myself wise?
this also _is_ vanity. │ Then besides! Why, I said in my
│ heart, even this is an instance
¹ _Hebrew_ happeneth to me, │ of evanescence,
even to me. │

(14, 15.) =And I said, I did, in my heart= (it was not a right thing
to say, but, as we have already noticed, this formula introduces a
suggestion more specious than true), =Like the hap of the befooled, so
have I happened me= (_i.e._ made my own hap or result), =and why did I
make myself wise then in addition?= (The Masorets accent so as to make
this the main division of the verse, and consider these three last
words to belong to what precedes. The LXX., on the contrary――which adds
a gloss after καρδίᾳ μοῦ (διότι ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ), ‘for the
fool speaketh abundantly,’ which is an ancient one, for the Syriac has
it also, and varies much in its different recensions――considers them
to belong to the following verse. It is difficult on this account to
come to a conclusion which is correct, the LXX. or the Masorets; the
more that the Masorets themselves hesitate between יתר and יותר. On the
whole, one would incline to the following explanation:――take יֶתֶר in its
ordinary acceptation, ‘the rest,’ the meaning would thus be ‘then the
rest,’ or ‘what results is;’ and suppose the pointing יֹתֵר, a conjecture
subsequently strengthened by writing יותר); =and I said= (it was
possibly this difficult ו, ‘and,’ which gave rise to the Masoretic
conjecture――the LXX. take no notice of it; it is equivalent to ‘_why_ I
said’) =that this= (the contracted relative with גם occurs only chapter
i. 17, ii. 15, viii. 14, and has a tone of surprise and disappointment,
giving the sense apparently that ‘even _this_ wisdom itself! is’)
=a vanity= (or an instance of evanescence or transitoriness).

16 For _there is_ no │ because there is no remembrance
remembrance of the wise more │ of the wise or the befooled
than of the fool for ever; │ either, in the future; because
seeing that which now _is_ in │ as time goes on the present
the days to come shall all be │ will be forgotten, and fool and
forgotten. And how dieth the │ wise will perish alike together.
wise _man_? as the fool. │

(16.) =For= (an expansion of the above argument, and a corroboration of
the conclusion) =there is nothing= of =remembrance to a wise= (person
or thing indefinitely) =with the fool= (but the hiphil form is to
be noted, as also the article, the befooled, generically, for a wise
action perishes from remembrance amidst the class of fools) =to the
age= (_i.e._ so far as the indefinite future is concerned) =by which
present= (_i.e._ in the present of that future age or æon it will so
happen that) during =the days, the going ones= (meaning, of course,
the days as they are passing, or, as we say, ‘in the lapse of time’)
=the whole= (the whole of these wise lives and works) =is forgotten=
(niphal, ‘becomes a forgotten thing’) =and how then dies the wise? with
the fool= (_i.e._ both perish together).

17 Therefore I hated life; │ I was even disgusted with
because the work that is │ respect to life itself: for
wrought under the sun _is_ │ an evil to _me_ is the work
grievous unto me: for all _is_ │ at which I toil in this hot
vanity and vexation of spirit. │ work-day world, since the whole
│ is evanescent, and vexation of
│ spirit.

(17.) =Then hated I, with respect to the lives= (an emphatic את,
which the LXX. note by the adverbial σὺν, and meaning not exactly
that he hated his own life, as that he felt a disgust with respect
to life generally), =because an evil to me= (emphatic with על, giving
the notion of pressing upon) =the work which I worked under the sun,
because= (כי following in a sentence with כי at the commencement; this
particle thus doubled I believe to be often nearly equivalent to our
‘for,’ ‘as,’) =the whole is vanity and vexation of spirit.=

18 ¶ Yea, I hated all my │ I for my part was disgusted
labour which I had taken under │ with all my toil that I had
the sun: because I should │ moiled at it, in this work-day
leave it unto the man that │ world, because I shall leave it
shall be after me. │ to the man that succeeds me,

(18.) =I hated then, I myself= (emphatic pronoun, because again we have
Koheleth’s personal experience, as we should say, ‘I was disgusted’),
=with respect to all my toil which I= (again strongly personal, meaning
so far as it was _my_ toil) =had toiled at under the sun that I should
leave it= (close relative qualifying the verb, and giving the idea that
the grievance was that he would have to leave this work) =to a man=
(_i.e._ some man as a human person) =which will be after me.=

19 And who knoweth whether │ and no one knows whether he
he shall be a wise _man_ or a │ will be wise or foolishly
fool? yet shall he have rule │ clever, and yet he will have
over all my labour wherein I │ power over all my toil at which
have laboured, and wherein I │ I have moiled, and done so
have shewed myself wise under │ wisely in this hot work-day
the sun. This _is_ also vanity.│ world: another instance this
│ of evanescence.

(19.) =And who knows= (equivalent to ‘no-body does know’) whether =the
wise= (with the article, meaning one who belongs to this class, and who
will really act wisely) =or a fool?= (סכל――that is, a wisely-foolish
person, one whose wisdom will prove a mistake according to the meaning
of this word, see chapter ii. 3, references.; and will use this power
provided to his hand either amiss, or so as to defeat the end the
wise man had in view) =and he has power= (שלט, a favourite word of
Koheleth’s; the exact meaning of this term may be found in Psalm
cxix. 130) =in all my toil which I have toiled at, and which also I
have made myself wise in= (_i.e._ spent my pains wisely in) =under the
sun: besides this is vanity= (or, as we should say, ‘moreover this is
another instance of vanity or evanescence’).

20 Therefore I went about to │ So then I came round to the
cause my heart to despair of │ conclusion that I must bid
all the labour which I took │ farewell to any hope of
under the sun. │ satisfaction from anything I
│ had toiled at in this work-day
│ world;

(20.) =I turned round then, I myself, to cause to despair with respect
to my heart= (יאש, occurs 1 Samuel xxvii. 1, where the word is used of
Saul giving up the search for David in despair) =over the toil which I
toiled at under the sun.=

21 For there is a man whose │ because it amounts to this:
labour _is_ in wisdom, and │ man, even when he toils wisely,
in knowledge, and in equity; │ prudently, and successfully,
yet to a man that hath not │ does so for some individual
laboured therein shall he │ who has not toiled at all, and
leave it _for_ his portion. │ gives it to him to possess: an
This also _is_ vanity and a │ instance of evanescence, and
great evil. │ very evil.

(21.) =For it is= (this exists as the real state of the case) =man=
(_i.e._ one specimen of humanity――this is what humanity is really doing)
=which he toils= (= who _is_, or may be, labouring) =with wisdom, and
with knowledge, and with success= (כשרון, occurs chapter ii. 21, iv. 4,
v. 11, the root occurs Esther viii. 5, chapter xi. 6, x. 10; it is
a technical word――a ‘successful issue’ is the meaning; compare the
passages. The LXX. render by ἀνδρείᾳ, ‘bravery,’ which is not a bad
rendering, since it appears from the above that this success was but
temporary), =and to a man who= has =not= (emphatic; the contracted
relative joined with the negative shows that his _not_ doing this is
the point) =toiled= (_i.e._ taken any trouble) =in it= (emphatic, = ‘in
that same’) =he will give it= as =his portion; also this is= a =vanity=
and =an evil= which is =great=. (There is a strange sarcastic tone
given by the affix in the verb following the emphatic pronoun, ‘to one
who has not toiled in _it_ at all will he give that same.’)

22 For what hath man of │ For what comes to a man through
all his labour, and of the │ all his toil and vexing his
vexation of his heart, wherein │ heart, which he himself toils
he hath laboured under the │ at within this work-day world?
sun? │

(22.) =For what is there= (הוה, a peculiar form; but is it not possible
that this word has been chosen for the sake of the equivoke? הַוָּה,
‘calamity,’ ‘perverseness,’ Job vi. 2, Micah vii. 3, and which makes
most pungent and admirable sense) =to a man in all his toil, and in
vexing= (רעיון, not רעות; compare chapter i. 18) =his heart which he=
himself =toils= at =under the sun?=

23 For all his days _are_ │ Why, every day he spends is a
sorrows, and his travail │ trouble, and disappointment the
grief; yea, his heart taketh │ result of his anxiety, so that
not rest in the night. This is │ even at night his heart gets
also vanity. │ no rest. So then this is an
│ instance of evanescence itself.

(23.) =For= (as כי is repeated, it becomes emphatic, ‘for now’) =all
his days are causing him pain= (or painful――notice the force of the מ־)
=and disappointment his anxiety=, (a pregnant sentence, denoting more
than his anxiety disappoints, his anxiety is always painful and useless
too) =also at night does not rest= (this clause is an additional proof
that we have correctly determined the meaning of ♦ענין; it is anxiety
which causes wakefulness) even =his heart. Moreover this a vanity it
is= (emphatic; so the meaning is, ‘this then _is indeed_ an instance of
evanescence’).

♦ “עגין” replaced with “ענין”

24 ¶ _There is_ nothing │ There is no real good then to
better for a man, _than_ that │ man in eating or drinking, or
he should eat and drink, and │ in supposing he will satisfy
_that_ he should make his soul │ himself with his toil. Moreover,
enjoy good in his labour. This │ I must make this observation,
also I saw, that it _was_ from │ that these things are all in
the hand of God. │ the hand of the Almighty,

(24.) The conclusion of this argument now follows, viz.:――This toil
is useless, and the reasoning is set out at length. =There is nothing=
of a =good= (not לא here, but אין, the former would be required if the
meaning were ‘it is not good that’) =in a man= (_i.e._ as an instance
of humanity, and the whole is equivalent to ‘It is not to humanity real
good that’) =that he should eat and drink, and show his soul= (_i.e._
himself) =good= (repeated, ‘that good’) =in his toil. Moreover this=
(pointed זהֹ, feminine or _neuter_, which the LXX. confirm, τοῦτο) =have
I seen,= even =I, now from= the =hand= (but ‘the’ is not emphatic at
all, which would have required a different construction) of =the Deity=
(on the contrary, ‘the’ is emphatic here, and, as will appear, the use
of the article is significant) =it is= (emphatic).

25 For who can eat, or who │ for who could eat or even drink
else can hasten _hereunto_, │ apart from Him?
more than I? │

(25.) =For= (repeated) =who eats or who= even =drinks= (because
drinking is possible when eating is not) =apart from him?= (for we read
with the LXX. חוץ ממנו, for clearly this makes good sense, and preserves
the real meaning of חוץ, which has the signification of ‘without,’
‘on the outside,’ Genesis vi. 14, Deuteronomy xxv. 5, references.)
The phrase ומי יחוש חוץ ממני requires further elucidation. The reading ממנו,
supported by the LXX., is also confirmed by Hebrew MSS. The literal
rendering is――‘and who hastens outside him.’ This the LXX. translate
καὶ τίς πιέται πάρεξ αὐτοῦ, ‘who drinks,’ etc. There is a reading of
A², φείσεται, ‘spares.’ The former is supported by Peshito, Arabic,
and Theodotion――the latter by Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. If the
Greek text alone had to be considered, φείσεται would, as the harder
reading, be entitled to the preference. It is readily seen, however,
that it arose from a conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text into חוס,
for which there is no authority; neither will the meaning to ‘spare’
make any sense in the context. As the root occurs frequently, we are
driven to the conclusion that the rendering of the LXX. was by design.
Schleusner’s conjecture that πίεται is used in the signification of
‘sensibus frui,’ is no doubt correct――compare Habakkuk i. 8, as also
Isaiah xxviii. 16. Considered as _ad sensum_, this rendering gives the
idea of the Hebrew text correctly.

26 For _God_ giveth to a man │ and so to man just as is right
that _is_ good in his sight │ in His sight He gives wisdom
wisdom, and knowledge, and │ and knowledge and gladness, but
joy: but to the sinner he │ to the transgressor He gives
giveth travail, to gather and │ the anxiety of accumulating
to heap up, that he may give │ and collecting what is to be
to _him that_ is good before │ granted to any, as also is good
God. This also _is_ vanity and │ in the sight of God. So this is
vexation of spirit. │ another instance of evanescence
│ and vexation of spirit.

(26.) =For= (repeated again, so that this word becomes emphatic and
prominent. Accordingly _four_ reasons follow, comprising as it were the
whole cycle of the argument) =to a man= (still generic, as a specimen
of the human race) =which is good before him= (not altogether with
the meaning ‘a good man,’ but as ‘God thinks good’) =He gives wisdom,=
and =knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner= (_i.e._ the _erring_
sinner) =he gives=, on the other hand, =anxious-travail to collect
and to gather= (♦כנס, occurs chapter ii. 8, 26, iii. 5; the meaning is
‘to collect piece by piece;’ see also Psalm xxxiii. 7, 1 Chronicles
xxii. 2), =to give it to the good= in =the sight of God= (_i.e._ as God
sees fit it should be given); =so this also is vanity and vexation of
spirit.=

♦ “כנם” replaced with “כנס”

Thus, then, the first part of the argument is completed. Man obtains
nothing by his labour. It is the gift of a mysterious and inscrutable
Providence which alone confers any happiness or gratification.

CHAPTER III.

III. At this point Koheleth commences another line of argument; he
notices that all things proceed according to a fixed and settled order
of providence. This truth he brings into great prominence by instancing
eight-and-twenty――a fourfold seven――different times or seasons existing
in human life. From this he deduces the conclusion, that as it is
impossible to alter the order of Providence, the toil of man is useless
to effect any real good, so far as this world is concerned. The way
in which this thought is worked out is peculiar. Koheleth is both
sarcastic and paradoxical in his arguments; but his sarcasms are never
ill-natured and his paradoxes promote thought. He also enlivens his
subject with a considerable number of plays upon words, and striking
and pregnant aphorisms.

│ SECTION III.――_Further
│ demonstration of the vanity
│ of human labour from
│ considerations touching
│ Providence and Morals._
│
TO every _thing there is_ │ TO everything is there a
a season, and a time to every │ determined period, and a time
purpose under the heaven: │ for every providence under
│ heaven.

(1.) =To all= (human life, that is) is a =season= (זמן, this word occurs
here and Nehemiah ii. 6, Esther xi. 27, 31, only, and the participle
past of the verb Ezra x. 14, Nehemiah x. 34 (35) 13, 21; it will be
seen by an examination of passages that this word differs from מועד,
which both Ezra and Nehemiah also use, and which is the common word in
the older books for ‘a _sacred_ season’ or ‘feast.’ זמן is a ‘settled
time,’ ‘a date.’ Fuerst considers the primary idea of the root is ‘to
count.’ It is clear that מועד would not have suited this context; this
of course so far weakens any argument for the late date of this work as
derived from the use of this word), =and a time= (general, the common
word) =to all= (repeated, and therefore emphatic, equal ‘that is to
all’) =providences= (חפץ, which, however, has the signification desire
as well, ‘a satisfactory undertaking therefore;’ Koheleth uses the word
technically with a reference to the divine providences of God. The word
occurs chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 4 (3), 8 (7), viii. 6, xii. 1, 10. The
LXX. here render πρᾶγμα, but chapter xii. θέλημα) =under the heavens=
(this meaning of חפץ may account for one use of this phrase here
instead of the more usual ‘under the sun,’――heaven being perhaps
employed as we sometimes use it, for God’s providence under heaven).

2 A time ¹to be born, and a │ (1.) A time to be born, and
time to die; a time to plant, │ a time to die;
and a time to pluck up _that │
which_ is planted; │ (2.) A time to plant, and a
│ time to root up that which is
¹ _Hebrew_ to bear. │ planted;

(2.) =A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time
to pluck up the planted.=

3 A time to kill, and a time │ (3.) A time to slay, and a
to heal; a time to break down, │ time to heal;
and a time to build up; │
│ (4.) A time to break walls,
│ and a time to build them up;

(3.) =A time for slaying, and a time for healing; a time for breaking
down, and a time for building up.=

4 A time to weep, and a time │ (5.) A time to weep, and a
to laugh; a time to mourn, and │ time to laugh;
a time to dance; │
│ (6.) A time to cry, and a
│ time to play;

(4.) =A time for weeping, and a time for laughing; a time of wailing,
and a time of dancing= (there is an alliteration here, and a slight
change in construction to the hiphil in the next clause; possibly to
mark the close of the first seven pairs).

5 A time to cast away │ (7.) A time to scatter stones
stones, and a time to gather │ away, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to │ stones again;
embrace, and a time to refrain │
from embracing; │ (8.) A time to embrace, and a
│ time to refrain from embracing;

(5.) =A time for scattering stones, and a time of collecting stones=
(does our Lord allude to this, Mark xiii. 2?); =a time for embracing,
and a time to refrain from embracing.=

6 A time to ¹get, and a time │ (9.) A time to seek, and a
to lose; a time to keep, and a │ time for loss;
time to cast away; │
│ (10.) A time to keep, and a
¹ _Or_, seek. │ time to cast away;

(6.) =A time to seek, and a time to lose= (the Masorets consider this
a Piel with the sense to destroy); =a time for keeping, and a time to
cast away.=

7 A time to rend, and a │ (11.) A time to rend, and a
time to sew; a time to keep │ time to sew;
silence, and a time to speak; │
│ (12.) A time to be silent,
│ and a time for speech;

(7.) =A time for rending, and a time for sewing= (see Genesis xxxvii.
29, 34); =a time for being silent, and a time to speak.=

8 A time to love, and a time │ (13.) A time of love, and a
to hate; a time of war, and a │ time of hate;
time of peace. │
│ (14.) A time of war, and a
│ time of peace.

(8.) =A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time
of peace.= (The slight changes in the rendering correspond to changes
in construction in the Hebrew, giving a pleasing variety to the whole
passage. There is also an observable difference in the second seven
pairs, which enumerate acts more emotional and subjective than the
first.)

9 What profit hath he that │ What advantage is there to
worketh in that wherein he │ the worker by reason of his
laboureth? │ own toil?

(9.) =What profit= (something ‘remaining over and above the present,’
in the technical meaning of this word, see chapter i. 3, references.)
=is the working= (an active participle with the article, and thus
generic, working then as such) =in which= (full relative, and thus
referring to the whole idea; we must render therefore ‘in respect of
its _being_,’ which will be emphatic, as it is followed by the pronoun)
=it is toil= (but we must remember that the exact meaning of this word
is――see Genesis xli. 51, Isaiah liii. 11――the ‘anxiety,’ or ‘care,’ the
labour produces. The question then is this, Is there any profit from
working in respect of its being care and pains? and the answer is, No.
The LXX. render somewhat _ad sensum_: Τίς περίσσεια τοῦ ποιοῦντος ἐν
οἷς αὐτὸς μοχθεῖ, ‘What advantage of him that works in those things
which _he_ toils?’ The Syriac, (‡ Syriac phrase) ‘What is the profit
in the work in that he toils?’ but both make the meaning clear. This
question is answered in the negative, the argument being elaborated
with much care).

10 I have seen the travail, │ I have observed with regard
which God hath given to the │ to the uncertainty which is
sons of men to be exercised in │ appointed of God to the human
it. │ race, to be made anxious
│ thereby,

(10.) =I have seen= (or ‘observed,’ as we should write, this formula
introducing a matter which observation makes manifest), =with regard
to the anxiety= (ענין, see chapter i. 13, references, the meaning
previously assigned of ‘_anxious care_,’ or ‘_uncertainty_’ generally,
the word being used to signify that special form of human misery which
consists in the _uncertainty_ in which man lives; this emphatic את the
LXX. notice and render by their adverbial σὺν, and to show us that the
observation was made, not _of_ the uncertainty, but _with respect to_
it) =which has appointed= (because this is the principal idea) even
=God= (the nominative follows, and is without the article, because it
is God in his personal character who is here referred to. The article
is used when the word occurs generically, as in the sense of ‘the
Deity’ or ‘the Almighty,’――‘which it is God’s appointment’ then is the
meaning) =to the sons of the man= (that is, the human race as children
of Adam) =to be rendered uncertain therewith.=

11 He hath made every │ that the whole is suitable at
_thing_ beautiful in his time: │ its proper time. Moreover, with
also he hath set the world in │ regard to the future, that too
their heart, so that no man │ is put into their desires, but
can find out the work that God │ so that Man cannot find out the
maketh from the beginning to │ working of the Almighty as _He_
the end. │ works it out from its beginning
│ even to its end.

(11.) =With respect to the whole= (again the emphatic את, and again
noted by Σύμπαντα in the LXX., some copies reading, σὺν πάντα ἃ, ‘the
whole which;’ as this preposition is repeated in the same clause, it
is specially emphatic here) =he made it fair= (that is ‘appropriate,’
which the LXX. render καλὰ) =in its time= (one of these providential
times or seasons above spoken of). =Moreover= (commencing another and
additional argument, confirming the above), =with respect to the age=
(again את repeated with the article, noticed as before by the LXX.,
and again by them rendered σὺν, meaning therefore generally, and also
with regard to the indefinite future generically it is, etc.) =is set=
(placed by God indeed, but the nominative is so far off that the verb
is almost impersonal, or in other words all emphasis on the nominative
is lost) =in their hearts from the want of which= (מבלי, occurs Job
iv. 11; this word joined to the full relative must mean ‘but as they
do not possess this knowledge of the future or this influence over the
age, or course of things present and future, so as to control it,’ for
this is the meaning of עלם, see chapter i. 4, references.) =does not
find= (emphatic, as standing before its nominative) =the man= (_i.e._
‘Humanity generally cannot find’ or ‘discover’) =with respect to the
working= (the LXX. do not render here by σὺν, probably because τὸ
ποίημα is clear enough without it) =which works= (‘is the work of’)
=the Deity from the beginning even unto= (this preposition being
separated and joined with a conjunction is much more forcible than the
mere affixed מ־ above, because, possibly, it is desired to render
emphatic this final word which is reserved to the close of the sentence)
=the end= (סוף, which occurs in this book in the sense of a final
conclusion, see chapter xii. 13, and which in the working of Divine
Providence is especially mysterious).

12 I know that _there is_ no │ I am aware that there can be no
good in them, but for _a man_ │ real good to any, if it be not
to rejoice, and to do good in │ to rejoice and to see this good
his life. │ in their lives.

(12.) =I know how there is nothing good= (‘nothing’ and ‘good’ are two
nouns in closest apposition, and hence having the meaning ‘there is no
good thing’) =in them= (emphatic and a distributive plural, referring
to אדם singular) =except to rejoice and to do good= (but not in the
sense of doing right, which, of course, is foreign to the train
of thought, but to the obtaining of good; and as this last idea is
repeated from what went before, we have the meaning ‘_that_ good’)
=in their lives= (which the LXX. render by the singular ‘in his
life,’ noticing the distributive plural. Hence then the sense of
the whole passage is plain: ‘I know that there can be no real good
thing belonging to them, except it be that they should rejoice and do
good each one in their lives,’ and this is exactly true, as death so
completely bounds the vision and terminates the earthly existence of
every human soul that what is not obtained in this life is clearly
not obtained at all. Of course the entire argument proceeds on the
supposition that we are regarding the whole matter as under the sun,
that is, limited to this earthly stage of existence).

13 And also that every man │ And beside, if any way humanity
should eat and drink, and │ should eat or drink, and thus
enjoy the good of all his │ sees this good by any of his
labour, it _is_ the gift of │ toil, it is simply God’s gift.
God. │

(13.) =And moreover= (an additional consideration added to the above)
=all the man= (_i.e._ all humanity generally, a proposition universally
true of the whole of them) =when he eats= (contract relative with
present tense of the verb, ‘as he eats then’――and eating is here put
as the general type of use and enjoyment) =and drinks= (this is not
superfluous; a man can drink when he can no longer eat; he can quench
the fever thirst when food is loathsome, hence drinking is the type of
solace) =and sees good= (as a past tense follows a present, we have the
equivalent of our imperfect; and as also the conjunction is repeated
before each verb, we may render them as dependent = ‘if he should eat
or even drink, and so should have a sight of a good’) =in all his toil=
(or by means of it). =A gift= (chapter v. 19, see also 1 Kings xiii. 17,
where it appears that the meaning of the word is a ‘present.’ LXX. δόμα)
=of God it is= (feminine, in close agreement with מתת. Here again we
think that there may be noticed a more subjective, or active idea,
when the feminine is used, than with corresponding masculines. In this
way we may possibly find a grammatical explanation of the anomalous
genders so common in Hebrew. In the Pentateuch הוא is used of females,
and a possible reason may be that in the earlier stages of the language
there was less tendency to regard mere grammatical concords and more to
follow the logic of the passage. It is worth noticing that grammatical
concord as such becomes more and more developed as the language
advances, hence Syriac is as strict as Greek or Latin in this respect.
Whatever be the reason, however, the fact of such closer connexion is
manifest by a careful collation of places).

14 I know that, whatsoever │ I am aware also that all
God doeth, it shall be for │ which the Almighty effects
ever: nothing can be put to │ must be done with regard to all
it, nor anything taken from │ time, that to it nothing can be
it: and God doeth _it_, that │ added, and that from it nothing
_men_ should fear before him. │ either can be taken away, and
│ that the Almighty acts that men
│ may _fear_ in his presence;

(14.) =I know how= (and as this is a repetition of the formula in
verse 12, we may add the word ‘also’ to show that the argument is
a continuation of the above) =all which does= (or is performed by)
=the Deity= (with the article) =it is= (emphatic, followed by the verb
substantive, and equivalent therefore to ‘it really is’) that which
=will be= (and so the LXX. render) =to the age= (to the indefinite æon,
or future that is, or rather, for both present and past are included
in this word, to the whole course of present existing things’), =to
it= (in the meaning of ‘over,’ or ‘above,’ as something dominating
over, which is the signification of על) =there is nothing to be added=
(niphal, which could be added) =and from it there is nothing to be
diminished= (Exodus v. 8, Job xv. 4, 8, or restrained. The relevancy of
this reasoning is now evident. Human labour and anxiety is vain, for
the course of providence cannot be altered by it, and if it could, the
alteration would be for the worse; what follows makes this more clear),
=and the Deity works that they may fear= (contract relative, with
the present as above. We have also the double jod; it occurs with the
single jod at chapter viii. 12, and again with double jod at chapter
xii. 5. There is no doubt a difference of meaning in these cases; see
a remarkable illustration of this in regard to the verb יקץ in Judges
xvi. 14 as compared with verse 20 in the same chapter) =from before
him= (מלפניו, with both מ and ל, and hence emphatic, ‘in _his_ presence’).

15 That which hath been is │ that what has been is just the
now; and that which is to be │ present, and whatever is to
hath already been; and God │ be is no other than the same
requireth ¹that which is past. │ present; and that the Almighty
│ will investigate with regard to
¹ _Hebrew_ that which is │ the wronged.
driven away. │

(15.) =What= is that =which was?= (the contract relative with the verb
substantive, _i.e._ what is _the past_?’) =the present state of things=
(‎‏כבר, see chapter i. 10, references; the word is a substantive with its
ordinary technical meaning as used in this book of the ‘present as it
now is,’ and of this he says) =it is= (emphatic) =and that which is to
be= (appointed so to be. The LXX. render ὅσα τοῦ γίνεσθαι, literally
‘things of the being,’ ‘or to happen’) =the present state of things
it was= (that is, ‘this _very_ same present it is;’ each age being in
this respect an exact reproduction of what went before it. It never was
subject to human control, and never will be) =and the Deity= (as this
word is repeated in the same clause, and stands as a nominative before
the verb, it is especially emphatic) =seeks= (‘asks after,’ ‘inquires
for,’ with the object of not allowing it to pass notice, see 1 Samuel
xx. 16) =with respect to a persecuted= (person or thing. He does not
allow any person or thing who is wronged to pass without notice).

No doubt St. Jerome has completely hit the point of the argument when
he writes, ‘Since all things fade with time, and there is a time of
destroying and building, weeping and laughing, for silence and speaking,
and those other things which are said concerning time, why do we strive
and press forward in vain, and imagine the brief labours of life to be
perpetual, nor are we content, according to the Gospel, with the evil
of to-day, and so take no thought for the morrow?’

16 ¶ And moreover I saw │ Yet, however, I have observed
under the sun the place of │ in this work-day world, that in
judgment, _that_ wickedness │ place of justice there is
_was_ there; and the place of │ impiety, and in the place even
righteousness, _that_ iniquity │ of right there is impiety also.
_was_ there. │

(16.) =And yet= (an objection to the foregoing) =I have seen under the
sun= (the limitation here introduced requires special attention) =a
place of the justice= (we must not limit place to mean _locality_, but
take it generally of state or position, etc., and observe also that
‎‏המשפט has the article, and is therefore generic); =there= was =the
wickedness= (again generic, and hence having the meaning that in place
of justice, as one would expect from the proposition stated above,
that the Deity has regard to the wronged, just the reverse occurred;
this is again enlarged in the following), =and in the place of the
right there was the wickedness= (the meaning is, that ‘just in the
very circumstances under which you would expect right to prevail,
there you will find rampant and successful wickedness.’ רשע has the
meaning of that kind of ‘wickedness’ which goes out into bold and open
transgression, see 2 Samuel xxii. 22; Psalm x. 2, 3, 4, 13).

17 I said in mine heart, God │ Then said I to myself:
shall judge the righteous and │ With respect to right and
the wicked: for _there is_ a │ wickedness, the Almighty does
time there for every purpose │ justice, because there is a
and for every work. │ time to every providence and
│ dominating over every action
│ which is done there.

(17.) =I said, I myself, in my heart= (which we have noticed commonly
introduces a thought more specious than true), =with respect to= (את,
which the LXX. note with their customary σὺν) =the righteous= (_i.e._
what is _made_ right or _done_ right; notice the hiphil form as
compared with that in the above), =and with regard to the impious=
also =judges the Deity, for= there is =a time to every providence, and
upon= (or ‘over,’ which the LXX. note by ἐπὶ) =all the working there=
(some copies of the LXX. join this to the next verse, but it is more
agreeable to the gist of the passage to refer it to the preceding, as
the Masoretic text does, and in this case ‘there’ refers back to the
age or period).

18 I said in mine heart │ Then said I to myself also:
concerning the estate of the │ By the reasonings of the
sons of men, ¹that God might │ human race in respect to any
manifest them, and that they │ discrimination of them by the
might see that they themselves │ Divine Creator, it seems that
are beasts. │ but brutes are they at best.
│
¹ _Or_, that they might │
clear God and see. │

(18.) =I said, I= did, =in my heart= (repeating the formula of the
preceding verse, and so lending emphasis to it), =upon the speech=
(this phrase occurs three times, and only in this book, viz. here, and
chapters vii. 14 and viii. 2. Notwithstanding that a similar phrase
occurs Psalm cx. 4, with the meaning ‘after the order,’ LXX. κατὰ
τὴν τάξιν, which is apparently sanctioned by New Testament exegesis,
compare Hebrews v. 6, etc.; this is really not to the point, for
that is על דברתי, the plural, while this is singular. According to
strict grammar דברת is the construct of דברה, and should therefore
mean ‘reasoning of,’ just as the LXX. render by περὶ λαλιᾶς, and
this, moreover, will make good sense in every passage in which this
phrase occurs) =of the sons of Adam= (_i.e._ the human race) =to the
discriminating them= (hence the LXX. διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς, considering that
the root is ברר, which has the meaning ‘to sift,’ ‘purify by sifting,’
this is the only instance of the infinitive kal. Now we must take this
meaning, observing that the pronoun ‘them,’ which is involved in the
termination of the verb, is not emphatic; it is the discrimination
of God which is the point, the persons on which this is exercised
are subordinate. The Jewish commentators for the most part explain
‎‏לברם as the third person singular preterite of ברה with the objective
pronominal affix ם [the only instance, however, in which ברה has the
meaning ‘to choose’ is 1 Samuel xvii. 8]; as, however, some copies
read לבררם, we can have no difficulty in referring the word to the
root ברר, which makes good sense. It is also to be remarked that
though ברם does not exist as a root in Hebrew, it does so in Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic, and the meaning is that which is ‘twisted’ or
‘infolded’――compare Ezekiel xxvii. 24――a ‘garment’ worked in many
colours; this would make good sense also in this place, and may
possibly have been an intentional equivoke, which is not surely
improbable in a sentence in which such manifest artificial alliteration
occurs. The meaning then is, that) =the Deity= (discriminates men, or
makes a distinction between them and the lower creatures; but in what
respects? This is discussed at length) =and to see= (but rather might
this form of the infinitive be rendered, for which there is sufficient
authority, ‘_to the appearance_’) =that they= (contract relative, and
hence the meaning is that this appearance belongs to them, and them
only. In this may be found the key to the whole passage. In appearance
there is no choice or discrimination, as subsequent argument proves,
because they are) =a cattle= (singular, following a plural, and
thus giving the meaning that each one is so) =they to them= (which
Mendelssohn explains, following the LXX., ‘when left to themselves,’
or, as we should say, as ‘far as they can tell.’ With this Ewald
and Ginsburg agree, who consider this latter clause an ironical
‘_ipsissimi_,’――‘they themselves, indeed!’ Thus, then, the meaning of
the whole passage is, ‘I said, yes, I did in my heart again, so far
as human reasonings extend concerning any discrimination the Divine
Providence has made of them, and as far as appearances go with them, a
mere animal is each one of them, so far as they can tell.’ The sentence
is very sarcastic and equivocal, as the alliteration at the end shows.
Then, again, if we take the root ברם in the sense of ‘web,’ as we use
it for something intricate, in that case we should have the equivoke,
‘concerning the web of Divine Providence so far as it appears to them.’
Again, also, the Syriac renders as if לברם were לבראם, ‘their Creator,’
which also makes excellent sense; but this, again, may simply be
a rendering of another equivoke. Then, again, there is a possible
play between בהמה and the same word considered as המה with the
preposition――all these equivokes assist the sense). Consistent with
this is what follows:――

19 For that which befalleth │ For the event which happens
the sons of men befalleth │ to the human race, and the
beasts; even one thing │ event which happens to the
befalleth them: as the one │ brute-creation, is precisely
dieth, so dieth the other; │ the same event: the one dies
yea, they have all one │ just the same death as the
breath; so that a man hath no │ other; and the animal life
pre-eminence above a beast: │ is the same in both; and the
for all _is_ vanity. │ pre-eminence of man over the
│ brute is nothing at all; for
│ all alike are evanescent;

(19.) =For a happening of the sons of man, and a happening of the brute
creation, and a happening= which is =one= (as we should say, ‘precisely
the same’) =to them= (the threefold repetition of מקרה, ‘hap,’ brings
this word into strong prominence. It means, of coarse, that which
absolutely happens or results, or comes to them in the end. This is
exactly the same in both cases, as the sequel shows). =As is the death
of this, so= (‘exactly so’) is =the death of this=, and =the spirit=
(or ‘breath’) is =one to all, and the pre-eminence= (ומותר, this noun
occurs in this form only at Proverbs xiv. 23, and xxi. 5, and evidently
with the meaning of advantage or increase of one thing over another.
The LXX. translate this as if it were ומי יתר, ‘and what profit,’ but
this is simply to give the sarcastic turn to the sentence) =of the man=
(humanity generally) =over the beasts is nothing, for the whole= (in
its technical sense of the whole of life, as usual) is =a vanity= (or
evanescent).

20 All go unto one place; │ all alike go to the same place;
all are of the dust, and all │ all alike come from the same
turn to dust again. │ dust; and all alike return to
│ the same dust again.

(20.) And =the whole goes to one place, the whole= (repeating this
word so as to bring it into strong prominence) =was from the dust, and
the whole= (again repeated, making the fourth time, and so implying
universality) =returns to the dust=.

21 Who knoweth the spirit │ For who can tell how that the
¹of man that ²goeth upward, │ spirit of man ascends up on
and the spirit of the beast │ high, and that the spirit of
that goeth downward to the │ the beast descends downwards
earth? │ to the earth?
│
¹ _Hebrew_ of the sons of │
man. │
│
² _Hebrew_ is ascending. │

(21.) =Who knows?= (participle, poel, ‘who is knowing?’ or ‘who is
there that knows?’ The question does not assert the fact that there
_is_ no difference between man and beast; on the contrary, this clause
is so ingeniously contrived as to assert the very reverse). =The spirit
of the sons of men= (in its usual meaning, of the whole human race)
=is the ascending= (with the article, ‘the ascending thing’), =it
is= (emphatic) =to the ascent= (the repetition of the same root in a
different grammatical form gives prominence to this word. The human
soul is, it appears, especially an ‘ASCENDING thing’); =and the spirit=
of the =beast= a =thing descending= (participle, poel with article),
=it is= (emphatic, it really is this) =[to the] downwards to the earth=
(the ל, to, twice repeated, gives emphasis――‘even to’).

22 Wherefore I perceive that │ Thus I perceived that there
_there is_ nothing better, │ can be no real good above that
than that a man should rejoice │ present-pleasure which man can
in his own works; for that │ obtain from his work; as that
_is_ his portion: for who │ is what belongs to him: for who
shall bring him to see what │ can bring him to see what may
shall be after him? │ be the subsequent results?

(22.) =And I saw= (‘and thus I observed’) =how there is nothing of
real-good= (in the technical sense in which this word occurs so often
in this book) =from which= (full relative, ‘more than that in which,’
or ‘above that he should’) =he rejoices=, even =the man= does (humanity
generally), =in his workings= (or what he accomplishes, plural), =for=
(or, as כי has occurred in the corresponding clause previously, ‘as’)
=this is= (emphatic) =his portion= (‘lot’ or ‘inheritance,’ singular):
=for who= (כי again repeated, so we must render it ‘and as none’) =can
make him come to see= (this is not exactly equivalent to ‘make him
see;’ it is rather equivalent to ‘who could enable him to see,’ or
‘who could show him some method how he might discover’) =in what=
(‘of what sort’ is that work which) =which will be after him= (not
in respect of time, but results,――‘consequences,’ therefore). Thus
Koheleth’s reasoning is quite clear, conclusive, and connected. In
_ten_ particulars man and beast are alike. (1.) The result is the
same to both; (2.) their death is alike; (3.) their spirit or animal
life is the same; (4.) there is no pre-eminence of the one over the
other; (5.) they are alike evanescent; (6.) they all go to the same
place; (7.) they come from the same dust; (8.) and they all go to the
same dust, and no one can tell (_i.e._ for certain, or by ordinary
observations) that they differ in this; (9.) man’s soul goes up,
(10.) and the beast’s goes down. The arrangement of the whole, it will
be seen, is highly artificial.

The next stage in the argument opens with ‘I turned and saw.’ That
is a further observation of a point in which, it may be remarked
incidentally, man does differ from the beast: he is the only animal
that weeps. The object here is again to show that mere earthly labour,
as such, produces no satisfaction. At this point the argument becomes
somewhat less sustained, dealing rather with a succession of instances.

CHAPTER IV.

SO I returned, and │ BUT to return: I am observing
considered all the oppressions │ this with regard to all those
that are done under the sun: │ afflictions which happen
and behold the tears of _such │ in this work-day world.
as were_ oppressed, and they │ For see now the tear of the
had no comforter; and on the │ afflicted for which there is
¹side of their oppressors │ no comforter: and that in the
_there was_ power; but they │ hand of their afflictors there
had no comforter. │ is power, and yet there is no
│ comforter.
¹ _Hebrew_ hand. │

IV. (1.) _Turned I, and I see_ (the present tense following the perfect
is equivalent to our imperfect, ‘I was again regarding;’ because this
point has been touched on before, though in another form, at ii. 22, 23)
=with respect to all= (את כל, LXX. σύμπαντα) =the oppressions= (with the
article; we must not restrict this to the oppression of one man over
another, but take the word in its general sense, as from care, sickness,
misfortune, etc.) =which are done= (the niphal has an objective sense,
‘submitted to,’ or ‘are done upon others’) =under the sun, and behold=
(calling attention to a manifest fact) =the tear= (singular. This turn
of thought, which looks upon each tear as a sorrow, a type and sample
of all other sorrows, is very beautiful. Compare Revelation vii. 17,
and xxi. 4, Isaiah xxv. 8, for the other side of this,――‘God shall wipe
away every tear,’ etc.) =of the oppressings= (the same word as before,
‎‏העשׁקים, which the LXX., rendering _ad sensum_, express by a passive
participle; but the meaning of the passage really requires the same
word in both clauses: as far as Koheleth’s argument here is concerned,
the existence of the oppressor and oppressed are equally mysterious),
=and there is nothing to them of comfort= (the LXX. render by a
participle, ‘comforting,’ ‘no one comforts them’), =and in the hand of
their oppressors might= (this means, no doubt, ‘_that the power of the
oppressors was so great_,’ it was impossible to escape them; but hidden
underneath is the thought――which again increases the mystery――that
there is a mighty hand which could restrain these if it would), =and
nothing to them of comfort= (repeated, and so emphatic).

2 Wherefore I praised the │ Then I for my part pronounced
dead which are already dead │ happy the dead who are at this
more than the living which are │ time dead, above the living in
yet alive. │ their present [query?
│ _pleasant!_] lives;

(2.) =Then I praised, I= did (it was a personal matter, a mere opinion
of Koheleth’s), =with respect to the dead= (with the emphatic את)
=which at present= (כבר see chapter i. 10, references, which occurs in
the same technical sense as before, ‘this present time or state’) =are
dead= (hence the whole is equivalent to ‘which have finished their
lives, and now are in the state of the departed’), =above the living
which they are living as yet= (עֲדֶנָה occurs here only, and only differs
in pointing from עֶדְנָה, which occurs Genesis xviii. 12 only, ‘pleasure.’
It will be seen that this unusual word leads to a strange equivoke,
which yet helps the sense.)

3 Yea, better _is he_ than │ and better off than both those
both they, which hath not yet │ who have not yet been: who have
been, who hath not seen the │ not yet had [_the pleasure!_]
evil work that is done under │ to see that work so evil which
the sun. │ will be done to them in this
│ hot work-day world.

(3.) =And good above both= (equals our ‘better off than either’) =which
as yet= (עֲדֶן here only, differing again from עֵדֶן, ‘delight,’ ‘Eden,’
only in the pointing) =have not been which= (this being repeated,
is equivalent to ‘even those who’) =do not see= the =workings= so
=evil which are worked= (niphal, ‘suffered’) =under the sun=. It is
remarkable that in both cases the sentence may be rendered, without any
violence to its grammar, with each of these unusual words, translated
‘pleasantness’ and ‘pleasure’ respectively, as they ought to be thus,
‘Then I praised the dead which are now in the state of the dead, above
the living, in so far as they are living pleasantly (Hebrew idiom,
pleasantness), and better off than both to whom the pleasure is not,
who is not seeing that evil work which is done under the sun.’ No one
can, of course, for a moment doubt that the true meaning is given by
the former rendering, while this latter is only an equivoke, but it is
an equivoke which helps the sense, and gives a peculiar sarcastic tone
to the whole. I have endeavoured to represent this in the paraphrase
by an equivoke between the words ‘pleasant’ and ‘present,’ which I am
almost inclined to withdraw, so feebly does it render the grave biting
sarcasm of the original.

Koheleth now touches on another instance of unsatisfactoriness which
besets successful toil.

4 ¶ Again, I considered │ I have furthermore myself
all travail, and ¹every right │ observed of all toil, when it
work, that ²for this a man is │ comes to any successful issue,
envied of his neighbour. This │ what envy [hence] arises of
_is_ also vanity and vexation │ a man from his fellows; and
of spirit. │ this is another instance of
│ evanescence and vexation of
¹ _Hebrew_ all rightness of │ spirit.
work. │
│
² _Hebrew_ this is the │
envy of a man from his │
neighbour. │

(4.) =And I have seen myself= (equivalent to ‘I have also observed’),
=with respect to the whole toil= (in respect ‘of all toil whatsoever.’
Notice the twice-repeated emphatic את and σὺν), =and with respect
to all success whatever= (that is, toil or pains which come to a
successful issue――כשרון occurs ii. 21, here, and v. 11 (10), with the
meaning ‘success.’ The verb occurs xi. 6, x. 10; and the only other
place in which the root occurs is Esther viii. 5. It has been said
in consequence to be a late word; but the force of any reasoning,
derived from its occurrence, is much weakened by noticing that it is
a technical term, and is used to signify the ‘successful issue’ which
results. See chapter xi. 6, which is decisive. The LXX. render by
ἀνδρείαν, ‘bravery,’ which is also the rendering at chapter v. 11)
=of the working= (המעשה, in the usual sense of the working, or what
is accomplished), =for= (or ‘how,’ rather) =it is= (feminine pronoun
emphatic, see chapter iii. 13) =envy= (or jealousy) =of a man= (not אדם
here, but איש, ‘any one,’ or ‘one.’ German, ‘man.’ The meaning then is,
‘one’s jealousy’) =over his neighbour.= (Thus the whole sentiment is,
that Koheleth had observed that even when _toil_, the trouble attending
labour, seemed to have a successful result, it produced more envy than
pleasure, which Koheleth expresses by the pregnant words, ‘It is just
the envy of a man over his neighbour.’) =Also this= is =a vanity= and
=vexation of spirit= (_i.e._ is another instance of it).

5 The fool foldeth his hands │ The befooled wrings his hands
together, and eateth his own │ and eats his heart,
flesh. │

(5.) =The fool= (_i.e._ the ‘befooled,’ הכסיל, doubtless by envy)
=folds= (occurs iii. 5, 2 Kings iv. 16; or perhaps ‘wrings’) =his
hands and eats his flesh=. (It has been much disputed what we are to
understand by this figure; but Proverbs vi. 10, xxiv. 23――where the
same formula occurs to express the idleness of the sluggard――seems
conclusive as to the meaning of folding his hands, as also ‘flesh’ in
this book has a technical meaning, ‘the sensuous nature’――see chapter
ii. 3. We can best understand it of the self-mortification of envy:
thus the connexion will be apparent both with what went before, and is
to follow).

6 Better _is_ an handful │ and yet a real good is but a
_with_ quietness, than both │ fistful of rest; better than
the hands full _with_ travail │ both palms full of toil and
and vexation of spirit. │ vexation of spirit.

(6.) =Good= (_i.e._ a real good) =filling a hand= (כף, ‘the open palm’)
=with rest, than to fill= (which repeated twice is emphatic) the
=double hand= (חפנים occurs only Exodus ix. 8, Leviticus xvi. 12,
Proverbs xxx. 4, Ezekiel x. 2, 7,――the ‘two hands’ held together so
as to hold the most they can) =of a toil= and =vexation of spirit=.

7 ¶ Then I returned, and I │ Furthermore I have observed
saw vanity under the sun. │ also another instance of
│ evanescence within this hot
│ work-day world.

(7.) =And I turned, I myself=, and I =see= (the same formula
introducing another instance of the same kind) =a vanity= (an instance
of vanity) =under the sun=.

8 There is one _alone_, and │ There exists a solitary who
_there is_ not a second; yea, │ has no fellow; neither son
he hath neither child nor │ nor brother has he, yet there
brother: yet _is there_ no end │ is no end to all his toils:
of all his labour; neither is │ and besides no satisfaction to
his eye satisfied with riches; │ himself in all his wealth: who
neither _saith he_, For whom │ never asks, ‘For whom am I now
do I labour, and bereave my │ toiling and depriving myself
soul of good? This _is_ also │ of good?’ This is an instance
vanity, yea, it _is_ a sore │ of evanescence and uncertainty,
travail. │ which is evil and nothing else.

(8.) =There is one, and there is not a second= (evidently meaning
that there is one who is quite alone in the world). =Moreover, son
and brother there is not to him= (_i.e._ he has emphatically neither
posterity nor relationship to account for this desire of accumulating
which Koheleth is subsequently about to bring forward: his love of
accumulation is purely _selfish_), =and there is nothing of an end=
(‎‏אין, ‘nothing,’ is repeated three times: ‘_No_ end at all’ is therefore
the meaning. This continual harping on the _nothingness_ of the miser’s
state is an exceedingly effective piece of oratory) =to all his toil.
Moreover, his eyes= (altered by the Masorets to the singular, but
without much taste: ‘both his eyes devour his wealth’) =does not
satisfy= (feminine singular; hence, as the LXX. show, the word must
refer to eyes as its subject; they render ‘is not filled with,’ for
it is a case of a distributive plural) =wealth. And for whom do I=
(the oratio obliqua is dropped, and the directa used in its place; or
perhaps with this meaning does this ego) =toil, and depriving my soul=
(with the usual meaning, ‘myself’) =of good?= (abstract.) =Also this=
is a =vanity and= an =anxiety= which =an evil is= (emphatic) ‘indeed’
(equivalent to ‘an evil and nothing else,’ or ‘is simply an evil’;
other anxieties may be beneficial, this cannot be. This is the reason
why we have רע, and not רעה, the abstract, as we should have expected).

9 ¶ Two _are_ better than │ Good things are companionships,
one; because they have a good │ and better than solitaries; for
reward for their labour. │ these indeed have some reward
│ for their labour.

(9.) =Good= (things) are =the doubles= (_i.e._ union in the abstract),
=better than the single= (again, for the same reason, with the article),
=because= (literally ‘which,’ the full relative, and referring back to
the whole idea) =there is= (exists, ‘because there exists,’) =a reward,
a good= (_i.e._ a real good; for to love one’s neighbour as one’s self
is one of the real good things of this world) =in the toil of them.=

10 For if they fall, the one │ Because if one falls, then
will lift up his fellow: but │ his fellow sets him up again:
woe to him _that is_ alone │ but sad is it to the solitary
when he falleth; for _he hath_ │ when he slips, for there is no
not another to help him up. │ second to set him up.

(10.) =For if they fall, the one= (singular, following plural, either
one or other fall, that is) then =is caused to stand his fellow=
(Judges xx. 11, Psalms xlv. 7), =and woe to him= (in _this_ form at
this place only, perhaps because of the play upon the word אֵי לוֹ ‘where
is he?’ an equivoke which helps the sense) =the single one which falls=
(contracted relative, ‘when or as he falls,’) =and there is no second
to make him stand.=

11 Again, if two lie │ Moreover, if two lie together
together, then they have heat: │ they keep each other warm: but
but how can one be warm │ how can one be warm alone?
_alone_? │

(11.) =Moreover= (an additional instance of the advantage of
companionship, taken from the passive side, as the other was from the
active side of this matter), =if they lie down, two of them, and heat
to them= (_i.e._ ‘there is certainly warmth for them’), =but to the
single one, how can he be warmed?=

12 And if one prevail │ And where one would fail, two
against him, two shall │ will prevail; and a threefold
withstand him; and a threefold │ cord is not quickly broken.
cord is not quickly broken. │

(12.) =And if they prevail over= (impersonal, _any_ prevail over) =the
single, the doubles will stand before him= (plural, the idea is that
there are two to one), =and the cord= which is =the triplex is not in
haste broken= (Jeremiah viii. 16; Judges xvi. 9).

13 Better _is_ a poor and │ A Poor and Prudent young man
a wise child than an old and │ is better than a Perverse old
foolish king, ¹who will no │ king, who cannot be prevailed
more be admonished. │ on to listen to a warning.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ who knoweth not │
to be admonished. │

(13.) =Good is a child, poor= (מסכן, occurs chapter iv. 13, ix. 15, 16
only; the root occurs in the sense ‘profitable,’ see Job xxii. 2; the
idea seems to be, that kind of poverty which is economical and sparing)
=and wise from= (‘above,’ that is; the ordinary מ־ of comparison;) a
=king old= (זקן, the alliteration between _miscan_ and _zakan_ gives
pungency. We have rendered this in the paraphrase by a corresponding
alliteration) =and befooled, who does not know= how =to= be =warned as
yet.= (The allusion here to Solomon is palpable, and this may account
for the apparently redundant עוד, ‘_as yet_,’ at the end of the sentence.)

14 For out of prison he │ For from a prison-house of
cometh to reign; whereas │ plotters he comes forth to
also _he that is_ born in his │ reign, and beside in his
kingdom becometh poor. │ kingdom is the birthplace of
│ meanness.

(14.) =For from the house of rebels= (הסורים is considered a contraction
for האסורים, ‘prison;’ but, to say the least, this is a violation of
the critical canon, which bids us prefer the harder reading. That the
derivation from סור, ‘to turn aside,’ hence ‘revolters,’ is contrary to
the pointing, is not a valid objection, because the Masorets pointed as
they did to explain a difficulty; so also the LXX., who read δεσμῶν
and δεσμίων. If possible, we ought to preserve intact the unpointed
text. The exact and literal meaning is, as the text stands, ‘from the
house of the turners-aside,’ _i.e._ those conspirators and wicked men,
sycophants, who will be flattering him to promote their own interest,
and this was exactly Solomon’s case) =he goes out to reign, for= (the
second כי, with the meaning ‘so’) =also= (‘moreover;’ this particle, as
we have seen, usually introduces an additional reason, confirming the
one which went before) =in his kingdom is begotten= (♦נולד, _noled_, a
play upon ילד, _jeled_, above) =want= (רש is poverty in the sense of
indigence and meanness; compare 1 Samuel xviii. 23, and Proverbs xix.
1, 7, 22; as, however, רש has the form of a concrete, we must remember
that it involves the idea of a poor man, hence there is a sarcastic
ambiguity, heightened by alliteration. Take the LXX. and Masorets’
sense, which is merely to allow the obvious play between הסורים and
‎‏האסורים, and the sentiment is true, and, curiously enough, equally
corresponds with the history).

♦ “נלד” replaced with “נולד”

The following passage is one of great difficulty, but a very careful
attention to its precise wording and the equivoke it contains, may
perhaps afford a solution.

15 I considered all the │ I have observed of all lives
living which walk under the │ whatsoever, as they are
sun, with the second child │ progressing in this work-day
that shall stand up in his │ world, in regard to any
stead. │ successors which may arise in
│ their places,

(15.) =I have seen= (‘observed as matter of fact’), =with respect to
all the lives= (which the LXX. render σύμπαντας τοὺς ζῶντας), =the
proceeding ones= (participle, piel plural with the article――LXX. τοὺς
περιπατοῦντας――occurs here and Psalms civ. 3, Proverbs vi. 11; ‘as they
are advancing’ must be the meaning, and hence the observation was made
with regard to the _progress_ of these lives), =under the sun= (that is,
in this stage of their existence; the limitation here is excessively
important,) =together with the child= (with the article, generic,
and giving the meaning of that which is ‘begotten of them,’ of course
children primarily, but not exclusively; the ‘heir’ or ‘successors’
would represent the idea), =the second= (_i.e._ the _immediate_
successor) =who stands in their stead= (plural, which nevertheless the
LXX. render ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ, and rightly, because it is an instance of a
distributive plural, with regard to הילד).

16 _There is_ no end of all │ that no result was ever reached
the people, _even_ of all that │ by the [_moiling_] multitude
have been before them: they │ in the past: and as to what
also that come after shall not │ succeeds them, they will have
rejoice in him. Surely this │ no [_earthly_] pleasure in
also _is_ vanity and vexation │ that. Another instance of
of spirit. │ evanescence and vexing of
│ spirit.

(16.) =There is nothing= of =an end= (_i.e._ ‘result,’ occurs chapter
iv. 8, 16) =to all the people= (with the article, τῷ παντὶ λαῷ,
LXX.――and in this book it appears as a collective for the human
race――see chapter xii. 9), =to all= (repeated, hence with the meaning,
‘that is to all those’) =that= (full relative) =were before them=
(but ‘before’ in the sense of in their ‘presence,’ not in the sense of
‘before their time’), =moreover= (introducing an additional reason),
=the succeeding ones=――(see 2 Chronicles ix. 29, xii. 15, which will
give the exact meaning) =not= (rather emphatic from its position, ‘not
at all’) =will they= (_i.e._ the people before them) =rejoice in it=
(‘it’ is a singular following a plural, and hence a distributive, ‘any
successor’) =for also this= is =a vanity= (an instance of evanescence)
=and vexing= (not ‘vexation,’ because this comes from within) =of
spirit.= Thus the sense is clear; it is the conclusion of the argument.
Koheleth’s observation has regard to the progress of lives in relation
to anything that may or is to be produced by them in the way of
heritage――or, in other words, he asks how far the present state
of things can be explained on the theory that it is a working for
posterity, and he shows that this is not an explanation, for there is
no result obtained by the collective people in the present, because
each age is the same morally as that which went before it; while,
of course, with regard to what is to succeed, the present generation
cannot rejoice in that, because they will be all dead, and as the
argument is limited to what takes place under the sun, so all so-called
progress is but an instance of evanescence. The idea, if not that
contained in the observation of one who selfishly observed, when
requested to care for posterity, ‘that as posterity had done nothing
for him, he did not see why he should do anything for posterity,’ rests
on the same facts.

The sentence also, it appears, contains a remarkable equivoke.
‎‏לכל העם לכל sounds very like לכל העמל כל, and this division of the words will
make such good and pungent sense that we can hardly imagine that the
equivoke was unintentional. The equivoke is sought to be rendered in
the paraphrase by the addition of the words enclosed in the brackets.

At this point we come to another division in the book. Certain
practical exhortations follow, deduced from the previous arguments,
concerning human conduct, under the circumstances above set forth.

CHAPTER V.

│ SECTION IV.――_Practical
│ aphorisms grounded on the
│ foregoing._
│
KEEP thy foot when thou │ GUARD thou thy steps as one
goest to the house of God, and │ who art walking to the House of
be more ready to hear, than to │ the Divinity, and approach
give the sacrifice of fools: │ rather to hearken than to give,
for they consider not that │ as the fools do, a sacrifice;
they do evil. │ who do not know when evil is
│ being done.

V. (1.) =Keep thy feet= (the Masorets have altered this to the singular,
but without sufficient reason; yet the LXX. support the Kri) =as when=
(occurs chapter v. 3 (4), viii. 7; ‘as though’ is the meaning here)
=thou walkest= (taking up the word from the last clause above) =towards
the house of the Deity= (the LXX. render, of course correctly as to
sense by the double article, τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ――‘Thou art walking to
the temple of a Divine Providence’ is the idea), =and drawing near to
hear= (evidently ‘in order to hear’; hence the LXX. render ἐγγὺς τοῦ
ἀκούειν; some, however, with the Authorized Version, take this as an
imperative, but the sense is better preserved by rendering as the LXX.
do), =more than giving of the befooled ones= (for we must not lose
sight of the hiphil form: they are deceived either by themselves or
others) =a sacrifice.= (The curious rendering of the LXX. by no means
shows that they did not understand the meaning, or even would have
altered the present pointing; ὑπὲρ δόμα τῶν ἀφρόνων θυσία σου fulfils
their conditions of rendering, which is, if possible, to preserve both
the sense and the order, ‘above the gift of fools is thy sacrifice’).
=For= they are =not those instructed to the doing of= (so the LXX.,
τοῦ ποιῆσαι) =evil.= The sentence is purposely ambiguous and equivocal;
it is not clear at first sight whether the fools are those who do evil,
or whether it be the doing of evil generally which is the point, but
the following will seem to give a fair explanation of this ♦difficult
passage. The advice given after the considerations above, is to walk
reverently, and to listen to what God’s oracle will say, rather than do
as fools do,――offer a sacrifice to avert evil, which they do not after
all know to be such, and which, if it implies dissatisfaction with
these divine providential arrangements, is a foolish, if not sinful,
sacrifice. This is further set forth in the following verses.

♦ “difcult” replaced with “difficult”

2 Be not rash with thy │ Do not be hasty with thy lips,
mouth, and let not thine heart │ nor in thought hurry forth a
be hasty to utter _any_ ¹thing │ word against the Almighty, for
before God: for God _is_ in │ that Almighty is in the
heaven, and thou upon earth: │ heavens, and thou art upon the
therefore let thy words be │ earth: on this account let thy
few. │ words be sparing. Because just
│ as there comes dreaming through
3 For a dream cometh through │ a multitude of anxieties, so
the multitude of business; and │ there comes the voice of a
a fool’s voice _is known_ by │ befooled through a multitude of
multitude of words. │ reasonings.
│
¹ _Or_, word. │

(2, 3.) =Do not hasten= (the hastiness of vexation, see Job iv. 5,
xxiii. 15, Psalms vi. 10) =upon thy mouth= (the preposition is by no
means redundant), =and thy heart do not hurry= (the usual word denoting
the hurry of want of time. The meaning then is, do not speak, no, do
not even think, hastily) =to cause to send out a word= (with the usual
meaning of ‘a reason to be acted on’) =before the Deity, because the
Deity= (as this is a repetition, the word becomes emphatic, ‘that
Deity’) =in the heavens and thou= (emphatic) =on the earth, therefore
be thy words a few= (_i.e._ diminished rather than increased, hence
the following). =For comes the dream in the multitude of anxiety, and
a voice= of =a befooled= one (for it is without the article) =in the
multitude of words= (or ‘reasons,’ as above). The argument now passes
over from rash speeches to rash vows. A vow is a favourite resource
with the foolish for obtaining the accomplishment of their wishes: they
think to bribe Providence with gifts and offerings.

4 When thou vowest a vow │ (2.) Shouldst thou have vowed
unto God, defer not to pay it; │ specially to God, do not be
for _he hath_ no pleasure in │ slow to pay it; because there
fools: pay that which thou │ is no providence with the
hast vowed. │ befooled ones: just what thou
│ hast vowed pay.

(4.) =When thou hast vowed a vow= (‘If by any means thou hast done
this,’ for considerable emphasis is given by the repetition of ‘vow,’
according to the well-known Hebrew idiom) =to God, do not defer to pay
it= (the alacrity with which men vow is commonly in strong contrast
with the tardiness with which they pay), =because there is nothing= of
=providence= (חפץ, with its usual technical meaning, and also equivocal,
in the sense of ‘pleasure’) =in befooled= ones: =with respect to what
thou hast vowed, pay= (the LXX. render σὺ οὖν ‘thou then,’ but the
emphasis given by את אשר may easily account for this).

5 Better _is it_ that thou │ For it is better that thou
shouldest not vow, than that │ shouldst not vow, than that
thou shouldest vow and not │ thou shouldst be vowing and not
pay. │ pay.

(5.) =A good is it that thou shouldst not vow= (the sentence is
ambiguous, but the equivoke is ‘thou hadst better _not_ vow’), =than
that thou shouldst vow and not pay.=

6 Suffer not thy mouth │ Do not allow thy mouth to cause
to cause thy flesh to sin; │ thy body to sin; and say not in
neither say thou before the │ the presence of God’s messenger,
angel, that it _was_ an error: │ ‘It was but an inadvertence:’
wherefore should God be angry │ why should the Almighty be
at thy voice, and destroy the │ angry with your prattle, and
work of thine hands? │ put an arrest on the work of
│ your hands?

(6.) =Do not give with respect to thy mouth= (the את is not redundant,
‘do not appoint,’ which is the meaning of תתן), =to cause to make to
sin with respect to thy flesh= (the meaning then must be, ‘do not so
arrange matters as to cause thy mouth to make thy flesh sin,’ by, that
is, preferring the ease, pleasure, of the flesh or the like, to the
sacrifice caused by a redemption of the vow), =and do not say in the
presence of the angel= (with the article; had this been noticed as
it ought, less difficulty would have been felt in the interpretation
of this passage; the angel is the messenger of Providence who comes to
require the vow, and whom, of course, with or without sufficient reason,
the person bound by the vow expects) =that= (כי) =an error it is=: (see
Leviticus iv. 2, 22, 27, and Numbers xv. 24, 25, 29; when too this
passage is compared with Leviticus iv. 2, we can have no doubt that
‎‏לפ׳ מא׳ here is the equivalent of לפ׳ יי׳ there) =why= (LXX. ἵνα μὴ, ‘so
that not’), =should be angry= (Genesis xl. 2, Deuteronomy i. 24) =the
Deity over thy voice= (Ginsburg, excellently, ‘with thy prattle’), =and
destroy= (as this word is used to signify the ‘giving a pledge,’ this
peculiar signification conveys the idea, ‘destroy by exacting a pledge,’
‘make thee bankrupt by insisting upon payment’) =with respect to the
work of your hands?=

7 For in the multitude of │ For in the multitude of dreams
dreams and many words _there │ and vanities even so reasons
are_ also _divers_ vanities: │ are multiplied that GOD is to
but fear thou God. │ be feared.

(7.) =For in a multitude of dreams= (‘conjectures’ probably) =and
vanities and reasonings, the much= (_i.e._ these reasonings are
increased); =for= (כי is repeated, and this repetition makes it
emphatic――‘so indeed’) =with respect to the Deity fear.= The probable
meaning is, ‘fear God under all circumstances: vanity and conjectures
only increase the reasons for so doing,’――thus is revealed the real
conclusion of the whole treatise.

Koheleth now takes up a subject ineffectually discussed before, and
solves it with this principle just enunciated: Fear God.

8 ¶ If thou seest the │ (3.) If violent oppression
oppression of the poor, and │ of the poor, and wresting
violent perverting of judgment │ of justice and right, should
and justice in a province, │ be observed by you in a
marvel not ¹at the matter: for │ jurisdiction, do not be
_he that is_ higher than the │ surprised at the providence;
highest regardeth; and _there │ for the lofty are watched by
be_ higher than they. │ one loftier still, and these
│ lofty ones are――subjects.
¹ _Hebrew_ at the will, or │
purpose. │

(8.) =If oppression of the poor= (see chapter iv. 1, 3, etc.), =and
wresting= of =judgment and right, thou seest in a province= (במדינה,
this has been considered a late word, and a sign, moreover, that the
writer lived in the country and not in the city, as he says, chapter
i. 12; but though it occurs in the later Hebrew [1 Kings xx. 14 is the
first instance] it is quite regularly formed, and is clearly in place
here), =do not marvel= (Psalms xlviii. 6, Jeremiah iv. 9, to ‘be
astonished,’ ‘struck with astonishment’) =over the providence= (החפץ
with the article; the LXX. render τῷ πράγματι in this instance, the
word, however, occurs in the technical meaning it has all through the
book, see chapter iii. 1, v. 4 (3)); =for high from above the high=
(which the LXX. render word for word, ὑψηλὸς ἐπάνω ὑψηλοῦ) =keeps and
high ones above them= (the sentence is enigmatic, perhaps proverbial,
though the meaning is clear. Is it possible that a play was intended
between מֵעַל and מַעַל, Leviticus v. 15, a ‘transgression,’ גבה being taken
in the meaning of swelling up, thus――‘Increasing transgression is
increasing regard?’ In the same way the מ at the end of גבהים would
unite with the word following in utterance, and so help the equivoke).

9 ¶ Moreover the profit of │ And besides,
the earth is for all: the king │
_himself_ is served by the │ (i.) The produce of the earth
field. │ is all in all: a king is a
│ subject to the field.

(9.) =And the profit= (as this is joined by a conjunction with the
former, we must look upon it as a further argument in the same chain
of reasoning; the meaning will then be ‘and besides the produce’) =of
earth= (not _the_ earth, the article is wanting) =in all= (the LXX.
render this by ἐπὶ with a dative, hence they understood the preposition
here to mean ‘for all,’ which our version follows) =it is= (feminine,
in close apposition therefore with the noun, but this noun must be יתרון,
which is feminine, and the meaning is that it exists subjectively, or
is always there playing its part) =a king= (again, not _the_ king: any
king, therefore, however great,――Solomon himself, or any other) =to
a field= (again, not _the_ field, equivalent to some field; the LXX.
render by the simple genitive) =is served= (niphal; this occurs only
twice in the past tense, here and at Ezekiel xxxvi. 9, both in the
sense of tilling; and the niphal future twice, at Deuteronomy xxi. 4
and Ezekiel xxxvi. 34, again with the same meaning――no doubt עבד is
used with the signification ‘to serve generally’ in a vast number of
places. It must be observed, however, that a niphal is not exactly the
same as a passive, but has an objective signification, so that it is
often nearer in meaning to the Greek middle voice than our passive.
Bearing this in mind, we can have no further doubt over this passage
as to its principal scope,――‘the king is served of,’ or ‘a subject to
the field.’ The idea is that the very highest are really in a state of
abject dependence――a single day’s starvation would have been sufficient
to have brought to the dust Solomon or Nebuchadnezzar. The other
possible rendering, that ‘_the king is served by the field_,’ is only
the other side of the same truth, and the sentence is equivocal, being
ingeniously constructed so as to read either way).

10 He that loveth silver │ (ii.) A lover of money no
shall not be satisfied with │ money ever satisfied; and
silver; nor he that loveth │ who that loved profusion
abundance with increase: this │ ever had sufficient income?
_is_ also vanity. │ Another instance of the
│ evanescent.

(10.) =Loving silver= (the Masorets point as a participle, but
however correct this may be, the participial notion is in Ecclesiastes
apparently not so prominent, as it is when the poel is used written
full) =not satisfies= (_i.e._ as the nominative follows, ‘shall not
be satisfied with’) =silver= (_silver_ is doubled here, and used of
course in the sense of money――the meaning being that ‘a lover of money
no _money_ ever satisfies’), =and who loving in a multitude= (_i.e._
setting his desires in a multitude of goods, or anything else) =not=
(but the LXX. in place of לא possibly read לוֹ, ‘to him,’ and this makes
far better and more pungent sense――‘_to him_’ emphatic will then be
the meaning) =a revenue= (Numbers xviii. 30, Deuteronomy xxxiii. 14,
Proverbs iii. 14, xviii. 20; or, still better, for the word is derived
from the root בוא, ‘to come,’ ‘an income.’ Thus it is seen that the two
clauses are aimed respectively against niggardliness and extravagance.
The miser and the spendthrift both never have enough); =also this is
vanity= (another instance of the transitory and evanescent, as indeed
it is, because these riches look satisfactory and are not).

11 When goods increase, they │ (iii.) As property increases,
are increased that eat them: │ so increases consumption
and what good _is there_ to │ too; and what success then
the owners thereof, saving the │ has ownership, but just the
beholding _of them_ with their │ right of beholding it?
eyes? │

(11.) =In the multitudes of the good= (an abstract, with the article,
and hence the meaning is ‘In the very increase of the property itself,
and as it increases,’ this being the meaning of the plural, which
is distributive) =multiply the eatings of it= (or, for the ה may be
considered paragogic, and so making, as it were, an abstract of the
poel participle, ‘consumers’), =and what is the success= (כשרון, see
ii. 21, references) =to the owners of it= (_i.e._ to ownership),
=except seeing= (ראית, this the Masorets alter to ראות, but unnecessarily,
for there is a slight difference in the sense here, which will account
for the unusual grammatical form; a causative or hiphil notion is
implied by it; hence the LXX. ἀρχὴ τοῦ ὁρᾶν, ‘the priority to see,’)
=his eyes?= (_i.e._ each one with his eyes, singular following plural).

12 The sleep of a labouring │ (iv.) How sweet is the sleep
man _is_ sweet, whether he │ of the slave, if a little,
eat little or much: but the │ or if much he eats: but a
abundance of the rich will not │ sufficiency to one who is
suffer him to sleep. │ enriched――does not cause
│ rest to him so that he
│ sleeps.

(12.) =Sweet= (but the participial form of the noun must not be
overlooked, nor the feminine termination, equivalent to a ‘sweetness,’)
=is the sleep of the slave= (‘of the toiler,’ with the article),
=if a little, or if the much he eats= (there is a peculiar force in
contrasting ‘_the_ much,’ הרבה, with the article, with מעט without it;
even if he should eat to _the much_ [_i.e._ as large a quantity as
he can] it will do him no harm: no nightmare will trouble him who has
earned his hearty meal by his hard work), =but the satisfaction= (as
contrasted with הרבה) =to the enriched it is not that which is causing
rest= (hiphil participle) =to him= (emphatic) =to sleep= (an equivoke
here is to be found in השבע and לעשיר, remembering that שבע, ‘seven,’
is used so commonly for ‘completeness,’ and עשר, ‘ten,’ as ‘rich’ and
‘overflowing;’ seven with ten has a peculiar meaning in the symbolism
of numbers).

13 There is a sore evil │ (v.) There is this evil
_which_ I have seen under the │ infirmity which I have
sun, _namely_, riches kept for │ observed in this work-day
the owners thereof to their │ world: Riches kept by an
hurt. │ owner to his own injury;

(13.) =There is an evil= (abstract, a particular kind of evil), =a
sickness= (another abstract) =I have seen under the sun――wealth keeping
to= (_i.e._ being kept by) =its possessors to their hurt.=

14 But those riches perish │ for the wealth itself
by evil travail: and he │ perishes in an uncertainty
begetteth a son, and _there │ which is distressing: so
is_ nothing in his hand. │ that when he begets an
│ heir, he has in his hand
│ just nothing at all.

(14.) =And perishes, that riches, that same= (as we should say, ‘those
very same riches’) =in an uncertainty= (בענין, another instance of this
word; we see that in this case also [see chapter i. 13, references],
the meaning ‘anxious uncertainty’ exactly suits the context), which
is =an evil= (this anxious care, instead of doing any good, is but a
simple mischief), =and he is caused to beget a son= (to whom, of course,
he would have wished to bequeath his wealth), and there is =nothing in
his hand at all= (which the LXX. render by a double negative, and hence
we must render ‘and has in his hand even nothing at all’).

15 As he came forth of his │ For naked as when he came
mother’s womb, naked shall he │ forth from the womb of
return to go as he came, and │ his mother does he go out
shall take nothing of his │ of the world again; and
labour, which he may carry │ nothing whatever does he
away in his hand. │ take from his care, which
│ he can hold in his hand.

(15.) =And as he came out from the womb of his mother naked= (which is
reserved to the end of the clause, making it emphatic; it is moreover
written full, so that a slight additional emphasis is given by this to
the ‘_state_ of nakedness’ existing), =he returns to go back= (somewhat
stronger than goes back――he comes to this state through intermediate
stages) just =as he came= (‘as he was at the first, so now is he at
the last’), =and nothing at all does he not lift up= (Genesis vii. 17,
‘bear’ as a burden) =in his toil= (as we say, ‘_have_ for his _pains_,’
observing the meaning of עמל, not the labour but the anxiety which
causes, or results from, the labour) =which he takes in his hand.=

16 And this also _is_ a sore │ Moreover, in this is
evil, _that_ in all points as │ discovered that evil
he came, so shall he go: and │ infirmity, that precisely
what profit hath he that hath │ as he began, so does
laboured for the wind? │ he leave off; and what
│ possible advantage can
│ there be, that he toiled
│ for the wind?

(16.) =And, moreover, this same evil sickness, all over against= (כל עמת
occurs as two words here only; לעמת is the ordinary form, it has the
meaning of ‘against,’ ‘over against,’ see Exodus xxv. 27, 2 Samuel
xvi. 13; it has been proposed to read כלעמת, in which case the meaning
will be as in the above――‘precisely as,’ LXX. ὥσπερ γὰρ, but this is to
a certain extent to cut the knot rather than untie it. Now עמת occurs
separately here only, and if עמת really exists, it is a noun feminine
in regimen; now the meaning of עם, which is presented both in ‘people’
and in the preposition ‘_with_,’ gives evidently something ‘collected’
or ‘gathered,’ hence עמה would mean a ‘collection’ or ‘instance,’
and עמת ‘collection’ or ‘instance of,’ and then the exact meaning
of כל ע״ will be ‘every instance of his going’), =which he comes=
(close relative, the reason of which is now sufficiently evident,
meaning, ‘just as he comes;’ he simply goes round in a circle without
accomplishing anything, or returns back on his own track in every
instance) =so= (emphatic, standing apart from its noun, equal ‘just
so’) =does he go, and what profit to him who has toiled= (close
relative again, ‘in that he has toiled’) =to the wind?= (which,
see chapter i. 6, returns back again as it did before. ‘To’ is here
not exactly the same as ‘like to,’ but very near it; but perhaps
also because his toil or care is to his spirit, as it has no effect
otherwise.)

17 All his days also he │ Moreover, all his days he
eateth in darkness, and _he │ consumes in darkness: his
hath_ much sorrow and wrath │ disappointment is very
with his sickness. │ great indeed: he has
│ sickness and is sorry.

(17.) =Moreover, all his days in darkness= (for, of course, all this
time he has never any idea which way he was really going, or what he is
doing) =he eats= (or consumes), and =disappointment= is =the much= (or
is multiplied), =and his sickness and wrath= (קצף is that kind of wrath
which arises from anger with a person on account of something wrong.
This miserable life is summed up, it appears, in four particulars――(1.)
All his days he eats in darkness; (2.) the vexation of disappointment
consumes him; (3.) he is sick, or rather, in this general sense, he is
afflicted; (4.) he is angry, for those mistakes and disappointments.)

18 ¶ Behold _that_ which I │ Manifest, then, is that real
have seen: ¹_it is_ good and │ good which I have observed,
comely _for one_ to eat and to │ viz., that it is proper to eat,
drink, and to enjoy the good │ and to drink, and so to see
of all his labour that he │ good in all one’s toil which
taketh under the sun ²all the │ one may toil in this hot
days of his life, which God │ work-day world, as the tale of
giveth him: for it _is_ his │ one’s daily life. For this is
portion. │ what God gives, and this is
│ one’s _own_ possession.
¹ _Hebrew_ there is a good │
which is comely, etc. │
│
² _Hebrew_ the number of the │
days. │

(18.) =Behold= (for this introduces the manifest result of his
observation) =that which I have seen=, even =I myself= (the result
therefore of his own personal experience), a real =good; which also=
(the full relative here has this meaning, because it is repeated) is
=suitable to the eating= (_i.e._ active enjoyment), =to the drinking=
(which is passive), =and to the seeing of goodness= (the _lamed_ is
repeated before each full infinitive, and the abstract טובה follows,
which therefore gives the meaning that what he had observed was, ‘that
it was proper that one should eat, or one should drink, or should see
good in,’ etc., _i.e._ any or all of these); =and= (repeated, meaning
‘_and also_’) =in all his toil which= (contracted relative) =he toils=
over (toil is thus made very emphatic, the meaning is, ‘for which one
so earnestly or unceasingly toils,’ for observe also, as no nominative
is expressed, the verb is impersonal) =under the sun the number= (the
root ספר has the meaning to count or enumerate, hence the idea ‘as one
is counting one’s days’) of =the days of his life which gives to him=
(emphatic) =the Deity= (nominative following verb, with the usual shade
of meaning), =because it is his portion= (_i.e._ what belongs to him,
but in the future he has no portion, _that_ no man has any right over).

19 Every man also to whom │ And beside, should the Almighty
God hath given riches and │ appoint to any individuals
wealth, and hath given him │ of the human race, riches,
power to eat thereof, and │ possessions, and the power
to take his portion, and to │ to enjoy them, and so to make
rejoice in his labour; this │ use of their possessions, and
_is_ the gift of God. │ rejoice in their toil――this is
│ simply a Divine appointment.

(19.) =Moreover, all the man= (_i.e._ every one of the human race
considered collectively and in the abstract) =which gives to him=
(equivalent to one to whom) =God= (gives or appoints) =wealth and
riches, and it is caused him to have power in order to eat= (which we
have seen is used as the highest type of enjoyment in the active sense)
=of it, and to take his portion= (for a man may possess without being
able to eat or enjoy at all, hence the necessity for this clause in
the course of the argument; נשא has the meaning to ‘lift up,’ ‘carry,’
or ‘bear’), =and to rejoice in his toil= (which――considering the exact
meaning assigned in this book to עמל, the ‘care’ one takes in one’s
labour――to rejoice in is to see it come to a successful end); =this
same= (the Masorets put here a strong disjunctive accent) =a gift= of
=God it is.=

20 ¹For he shall not much │ For the memory of the days of
remember the days of his life; │ the past life is not of much
because God answereth _him_ in │ importance; but the Almighty
the joy of his heart. │ rather exercises men in their
│ present emotions.
¹ _Or_, though _he give_ not │
much, _yet_ he remembereth,│
etc. │

(20.) =For not the much he remembers= (but as no nominative precedes
or follows, the verb is impersonal) =the days of his life=, and =for=
(the second כי introducing a reason in addition to and confirmatory
of the first) =the Deity answers= (this is the only place in which
the participle hiphil occurs; in one other place the participle
pual――Isaiah liii. 4, which differs only from the hiphil in its
pointing, occurs evidently in the sense of ‘afflicted,’ which the
LXX. render by κακώσει, ‘in affliction.’ The future hiphil is used at
1 Kings viii. 35 and 2 Chronicles vi. 26, parallels, and is translated
‘thou dost afflict them.’ On the whole, however, the meaning, as
pointed out by ♦Zöckler, and which the LXX. confirm, seems to be,
‘hears them by vouchsafing;’ and as this answer is painful or joyful,
as the case may be, and more usually the former, ‘exercises’ would be
a suitable rendering) =in the joy of= (or by means of the joy, בְ־, of
the instrument; it is an abstract in regimen, ‘in the joyousness’ or
‘rejoicings of’) =his heart=. Thus, then, the two reasons given stand
related thus: Present gratification is the lot of humanity, because
the past is not much remembered. The _chief_ remembrance――for this is
the meaning of הרבה――is not in the past. The deepest sorrows fade away
quickly into forgetfulness; and so also the brightest joys. They have,
no doubt, some influence by recollection, but not _much_. And thus the
Deity, or God regarded as the supreme providential ruler, exercises us.
He responds to our anxieties, afflicts us, or chastens us, or causes
us pleasure by means of joys given or taken away, as the case may be.
Again, these are spoken of as joys of our _hearts_, or of our inward
desires and consciousness, which is the meaning of ‘heart’ in this
book; our _emotional nature_, as the idea would stand expressed in the
nomenclature of modern philosophy.

♦ “Zökler” replaced with “Zöckler” for consistency

CHAPTER VI.

THERE is an evil which I │ THERE is another evil which I
have seen under the sun, and │ have observed in this work-day
it _is_ common among men: │ world, and a common one is it
│ upon mankind:

VI. (1.) =There is= (exists) an =evil which I have seen under the sun,
and common= (literally ‘much’) =it is= (feminine emphatic) =over the
man= (_i.e._ mankind in general).

2 A man to whom God hath │ one who has appointed to
given riches, wealth, and │ him by the Almighty riches,
honour, so that he wanteth │ possessions, and honour, and
nothing for his soul of all │ there is nothing lacking to him
that he desireth, yet God │ which he could possibly desire;
giveth him not power to eat │ and yet the Almighty Himself
thereof, but a stranger eateth │ does not allow him to have
it: this _is_ vanity, and it │ any enjoyment of it; but
_is_ an evil disease. │ some stranger or other enjoys
│ it. This is an instance of
│ evanescence, and an infirmity
│ which is indeed an evil.

(2) =A man= (איש, not אדם, for it is equivalent to our ‘one’
indefinitely), =which gives to him= (emphatic) =the Deity= (one to whom
the Deity gives, that is) =riches, and possessions= (chapter v. 19),
=and honour, and he is not lacking to his soul of all which he desires=
(the expression is peculiar, and is designed to bring into prominence
the fact that to this person nothing at all is lacking; as we say,
‘he wants for nothing’) =and not causes to him power=, does =the Deity
to eat= (in the usual sense of ‘enjoy’ or ‘use’) =from it, for a man=
(again איש, ‘one’), =a stranger, eats it= (equivalent to ‘some stranger
or another really enjoys it’). =This= is =vanity= and =sickness=, which
=is an evil=, (indeed) =it is.=

3 ¶ If a man beget an │ Suppose one were to beget a
hundred _children_, and live │ hundred children, and he should
many years, so that the days │ have many years, yes, many
of his years be many, and his │ indeed may be the days of his
soul be not filled with good, │ years, and his soul not
and also _that_ he have no │ satisfied with good, and he
burial; I say, _that_ an │ have no burial,――I should say,
untimely birth _is_ better │ that better off than such an
than he. │ one is an abortion.

(3.) =If is caused to beget a man= (again איש, ‘should one beget’) =a
hundred= (children is to be supplied, but not prominently; begetting
is used in its widest sense), =and years many= (plural, equivalent to
‘years, and many of them’) =should live, and many= (singular) =which
they are the days of his years= (‘and the days of his years should
be ever so many,’ his life being expressed both in days and years to
give strong prominence to the fact of its duration), =and his soul not
satisfied from out of the good= (the abstract with the article, hence
equivalent to our ‘good,’ standing alone), =and moreover burial= (the
abstract of the past participle, used, of course, as the place of
burial――see Genesis xxxv. 20, xlvii. 30, but with a shade of difference
from קבר――compare Genesis xlvii. 30 with Genesis l. 5, for here, too,
we notice that קבורה is written full), =is not to be to him= (emphatic.
To have no burial, no one to lament him or erect a tomb over him――to be
worse off than Jehoiakim, Jeremiah xxii. 19, who had the burial of an
ass――is such a terrible failure to a man who had possessed a hundred
children, of whom some at least might have shown him this last honour,
that it may well be cited as an instance of failure of human felicity),
=I say a good better than his= (emphatic) =is the abortion= (_i.e._
that abortion is a better lot).

4 For he cometh in with │ For in evanescence it begins,
vanity, and departeth in │ and in darkness departs, and
darkness, and his name shall │ its name in that darkness is
be covered with darkness. │ concealed; IT has not seen
│ light; HE has not known rest;
5 Moreover he hath not seen │ the one is no better than the
the sun, nor known _any thing_:│ other.
this hath more rest than the │
other. │

(4, 5.) =For in vanity he comes, and in darkness he goes, and in
darkness= (repeated, equivalent, therefore, to ‘in that darkness’) =his
name is covered; moreover the sun not seen= (which is the lot of the
abortion), and =not knowing rest= (the lot of the person here spoken
of), =to this= there is no =more= than =that=. The Masorets, however,
by their accentuation, show that they understood the verse somewhat
differently. They render, ‘a sun he does not see and does not know;
the rest of this is more than that;’ but this rendering is obscure
and clumsy, and makes the words ‘does not know’ superfluous, besides
interrupting the argument. The LXX. render verbatim: καίγε ἥλιον οὐκ
εἶδεν καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀναπαύσεις τούτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον, which is clear enough
with the Hebrew before us, but is quite unintelligible without it,
hence the text has been attempted to be amended in various ways (see
Stier and Theile’s _Polyglot_).

6 ¶ Yea, though he live a │ Suppose he had even lived a
thousand years twice _told_, │ thousand years twice over, and
yet hath he seen no good: do │ seen no good in them, does he
not all go to one place? │ not arrive at altogether the
│ same result as abortion?

(6.) =And if= (this particle occurs Esther vii. 4 only, equivalent to
‎‏וְאִם לוֹ, but common in later Hebrew and Chaldee. It is one of those words
from which many critics infer a late date to this book; but is it not
used for the sake of the alliteration with הלא below?) =he lived a
thousand years twice= told, =and goodness not seen= (as there is no
nominative expressed, these verbs are in the nature of impersonals, and
express the fact generally), =is it not to a place= which =is the same=
(literally ‘one’) =the whole= (_i.e._ the totality of such persons) =is
going?=

7 All the labour of man _is_ │ All the toil of humanity is
for his mouth, and yet the │ for the gratification of
¹appetite is not filled. │ appetite, and yet the desires
│ are never satisfied.
¹ _Hebrew_ soul. │

(7.) =Every toil= of =the man= (_i.e._ humanity) is =to his mouth=
(remembering the meaning of עמל, the sense is clear; the anxiety of men
is directed to their mouths, to satisfy physical or moral hunger), =and
besides the soul= (_i.e._ the self, the ego, as metaphysicians write)
=is not filled= (_i.e._ satisfied, or fills itself).

8 For what hath the wise │ What profit then is there to
more than the fool? what hath │ the wise above the befooled?
the poor, that knoweth to walk │ simply that which it is to a
before the living? │ man in distress to maintain
│ himself in the presence of the
│ living.

(8.) =For what is profiting to the wise beyond the befooled? what=
(repeated, ‘even what’) =to the poor= (but ‘poor’ in the sense of
oppressed or unfortunate) =made to know to walk in the presence of the
living ones?= We must notice, in explaining this very obscure passage,
that החיים, being with the article, must be looked upon as denoting
lives generally; moreover נגד has the meaning of ‘in the presence of,’
‘amongst,’ ‘in the midst of.’ Thus the advantage, or that which is
really profitable to the wise, is to know how to walk, proceed, or act;
to know which way to go in the presence of the living; in what way,
therefore, to direct himself through life and amongst its pleasures
and difficulties, so as to make no mistakes as the befooled does.
Thus we obtain a connected sense. The anxiety is for enjoyment, but
satisfaction is impossible. What, then, is the advantage or profit
of wisdom, in the sense of knowing what is best to do under a given
set of circumstances? and what advantage gives it over the man who is
dissatisfied equally, but does _not_ know this? The answer is, Just the
same as to a man in distress, who can manage to live. Existence itself
is the struggle for life; but the wise rise to the top, and the fools
sink.

9 Better _is_ the sight of │ Good is a sight with one’s eyes
the eyes ¹than the wandering │ above a longing for one knows
of the desire: this _is_ also │ not what: another instance this
vanity and vexation of spirit. │ of evanescence and vexation of
│ spirit.
¹ _Hebrew_ walking of the │
soul. │

(9.) =Good= is =the seeing= of =the eyes above the walking the soul=
(but the participle מראה is singular, and eyes are plural, hence
‘better is a sight with the eye than,’ etc. But may not there be
this equivoke? מהלך might be a participle also, and then the whole
would read thus, ‘A real good, the seeing of the eye, the wandering
of the soul’). =Moreover, this= is =vanity and vexation of spirit=
(this clause being in this case the answer to the above. So curt
and enigmatical a sentence was no doubt in some way intended to be
equivocal).

10 That which hath been is │ What then is that which
named already, and it is known │ will be? The present state
that it _is_ man: neither may │ of things, called by its true
he contend with him that is │ name, and known what it really
mightier than he. │ is――Old Adam, unable to obtain
│ a decision in a cause with a
│ Power superior to himself.

(10.) =What is that which will be? The present= (compare chapter
i. 10, references) =is called its name= (to be called by its name is
of course equivalent to our ‘accurately described’), =and it is known=
(subjectively) =what it is= (emphatic), =even man= (but here without
the article, an ‘instance’ then of ‘an Adam’ or human person), =and not
able to decide with the mightier than he= (emphatic, לדין, Psalms l. 4,
Isaiah iii. 13; this the Authorized Version renders rightly ‘to contend
with,’ because דון has the meaning of ‘judge’ in the sense of ‘decide
in a court of justice.’ שֶׁה֯תַּקִּיף occurs Job xiv. 20, ♦xv. 24, and chapter
iv. 12, and as an adjective in the hiphil form here only. The Masorets
notice that the ה is superfluous; but this could only have been because
they did not see, as the LXX. did [who add the article τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ,
‘the strong’], that it means ‘the strong one’ generically; ‘what is
stronger,’ as we say, or, noticing the hiphil form, ‘what is _made_
stronger,’ and which is clearly man’s destiny, decided by an overruling
providence which he cannot escape).

♦ “xvi” replaced with “xv”

11 ¶ Seeing there be many │ For there are numberless
things that increase vanity, │ reasons, and they only
what _is_ man the better? │ increase the demonstration of
│ evanescence, and that there
│ could be no profit to humanity.

(11.) =For there exist words= (reasonings, in the technical use of the
word in this book) =the much= (_i.e._ to the full) =multiplying vanity,
what is the profiting to humanity?= The meaning seems to be that there
could be adduced a still greater number of reasons, all of which would
show that human life was evanescent; but what is the profit, or use,
of stating them to humanity, or bringing them forward? and as יותר
naturally refers to דברים, the nearest nominative, it must be taken as a
distributive singular; so that this interpretation is the simplest the
grammar of the passage admits.

12 For who knoweth what _is_ │ For no one can tell what _is_
good for man in _this_ life, │ a real good to mankind in any
¹all the days of his vain life │ life: that life being a number
which he spendeth as a shadow? │ of evanescent days, which
for who can tell a man what │ he spends as a shadow, and
shall be after him under the │ of which no one can tell to
sun? │ any man what shall result
│ to him――in this hot work-day
¹ _Hebrew_ the number of the │ world.
days of the life of his │
vanity. │

(12.) =For= (another additional reason) =who knows what= is a =good to
man= in =his lives= (אדם, followed by plural, ‘lives,’ in _any_ life,
therefore), =the number of the days of his life= (_i.e._ as he passes
the days of that life), =his vanity= (that evanescent life of his),
=and he makes them= as a =shadow= (the LXX. render ἐν σκιᾷ, but this
may be _ad sensum_ only, not because they read differently) =which=
(full relative, because the whole idea is referred to, it may be best
rendered ‘because’) =who= (repeated, and so giving emphasis) =tells to
man what shall be after him= (_i.e._ what shall succeed him) =under the
sun.= The limitation is necessary, and especially here, as this passage
closes the argument thus far. What is to follow is in the nature of
detached and paradoxical aphorisms, illustrating these truths: they
are some of these many arguments demonstrating human evanescence and
transitoriness, but stated less formally than heretofore.

CHAPTER VII.

│ SECTION IV. _continued.――
│ Providential Paradoxes leading
│ up to the conclusion, Fear God._
│
A GOOD name _is_ better than │ (1.) GOOD is a name, (2.) good
precious ointment; and the day │ more than spikenard’s fame; and
of death than the day of one’s │ a deathday is better than one’s
birth. │ birthday.

VII. (1.) =Good= is =a name, above ointment good= (there is an
alliteration here which gives great pungency to the sentence. The
Masorets commence this paragraph with a large letter. The Jews have
discovered many mysteries in these letters, but here, perhaps, it is
sufficient reason to allege that a new division of the subject begins);
=and= the =day= (but without the article) of =the death above= the =day
of his birth= (equivalent to one’s birth, for there is no nominative
expressed. Some have remarked that the second clause being connected
by a conjunction with the first, is to be looked upon as containing a
consequence of the fact stated in the first; which is quite true if not
pressed too far. Possibly the idea might be presented thus――

All the ointment’s costly fame
Is not so good as a good name,
And thus it comes that dead saints die
In odour of sweet sanctity).

2 ¶ _It is_ better to go to │ (3.) Good is it to go to the
the house of mourning, than to │ house of mourning, rather than
go to the house of feasting: │ to go to the house of feasting;
for that _is_ the end of all │ because therein is the end
men; and the living will lay │ of every human thing, and the
_it_ to his heart. │ living should lay it to his
│ heart.

(2.) =Good= is it =to go to the house of mourning, more than to go to
the house of feasting, in which= (full relative) =is= (emphatic) =the
end of all the man= (the end of all humanity generally: every real
biography is a tragedy and ends with a death), =and the living= one
=will give it to his heart.=

3 ¹Sorrow _is_ better than │ (4.) Good is disappointment
laughter: for by the sadness │ above laughter; for by spoiling
of the countenance the heart │ the features the heart is
is made better. │ improved.
│
¹ _Or_, anger. │

(3.) =Good= is =vexation= (the vexation of disappointment――see chapter
i. 18, references) =above laughter; for in= the =evil= (concrete, and
therefore an evil or distortion) of =the faces= (plural, but פנים is so
generally, as the face is double) =is bettered= (a _pe. jud_ verb, with
double _jud_) the =heart=. I think the equivoke here is, ‘the worse one
looks, the better one gets.’

4 The heart of the wise _is_ │ That heart of the wise which is
in the house of mourning; but │ in the house of the mourning,
the heart of fools _is_ in the │ when the heart of the befooled
house of mirth. │ is in the house of mirth.

(4.) =The heart= of =wise ones= (as ‘heart’ is repeated again, it gives
the idea of ‘that heart’ spoken of before. This, however, as occurring
in a new clause containing a fresh sentiment, must not be pressed too
far) is =in= the =house of mourning, and= the =heart of befooled ones
in= the =house of rejoicing.= This aphorism is very suggestive: the
heart of the wise is improved in the house of sadness; fools, or rather
befooled ones, who are mistaken with their own joy, are improved in the
house of feasting, but it is an improvement in evil. This equivoke the
rendering of the LXX. preserves.

5 _It is_ better to hear the │ (5.) Good is it to hear the
rebuke of the wise, than for a │ rebuke of the wise, more than
man to hear the song of fools. │ that any should hear the song
│ of the befooled.

(5.) =Good= is it =to hear= the =rebuke= of a =wise one= (גערת occurs
in this book here only, but at Proverbs xiii. 1, 8, xvii. 10), =above=
a =man= (_i.e._ any one) =hearing a song= of =befooled ones= (the
hiphil form is here especially to be noticed, ‘many befooled ones
sing;’ as Jeremy Taylor says, ‘We commonly enter singing into the
snare.’ Ginsburg would amend this passage by relegating the איש to the
first clause; but this is to miss the point, which is, that ‘it is
better to listen to a wise rebuking, than for _any one_ to hear the
song of the befooled’).

6 For as the ¹crackling of │ For as the crackling of
thorns under a pot, so _is_ │ thorns under a pot, so is the
the laughter of the fool: │ cackling of the befooled――and
this also _is_ vanity. │ besides, it is evanescent.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ sound. │

(6.) =For as= the =voice of the thorns under the pot= (there is both
alliteration and equivoke here, the root סור having the meaning, ‘to
turn aside,’ ‘be crooked,’ etc., and סר, ‘displeased,’ 1 Kings xx. 43,
xxi. 4) =so= (the word ‘so’ is somewhat emphatic, as standing alone)
=a laugh= of =the befooled= (generic), =also this is vanity= (_i.e._
an instance of evanescence).

7 ¶ Surely oppression maketh │ Yet affliction makes false a
a wise man mad; and a gift │ wise man’s hope, and destroys
destroyeth the heart. │ the heart of his purpose.

(7.) =For the oppression= (generic, ‘the affliction of life’) =makes
mad= (poel future, occurs Job xii. 7, Isaiah xlii. 5; compare also
chapter ii. 2, which we have seen is the madness of false expectation)
=a wise man= (hence the meaning must be, that the oppressions or
afflictions of life put out the calculations of the wise, and make
their expectation false) =and destroys with respect to the heart=
(‎‏את לב, therefore emphatic; hence the LXX. render τὴν καρδίαν, and the
meaning is, that affliction [compare chapter iv. 1] not only makes his
expectations false, but disappoints his desires; which clearly, with
the advantages of sorrow stated above, it ought not to do to a _wise_
man) =of his purpose.= (Following the LXX., who derive the word from
the root מתן, which exists in the Arabic, and also in the Syriac――see
Bernstein, s. v., (‡ Syriac word) ‘moratus est,’ ‘tardus fuit;’ ‘that
which is purposed or appointed’ would be quite a natural meaning, for
‎‏נתן not only has the meaning ‘to give,’ but also ‘to settle or appoint.’
If we render with the Authorized Version ‘gift,’ we introduce an idea
altogether new and strange, while with the rendering supported by the
LXX. and unpointed text, the aphorism connects itself with what went
before and follows after.)

8 Better _is_ the end of │ (6.) [Yet] good is the end
a thing than the beginning │ of a matter, and more than its
thereof: _and_ the patient in │ beginning.
spirit _is_ better than the │
proud in spirit. │ (7.) [And] good is the
│ long-suffering soul above the
│ high swelling spirit.

(8.) =Good= is =the end of a matter= (in its technical sense of a
reasoning) =above its beginning; good is a long spirit above a high
spirit= (this is equivocal; ‘_long_-suffering is better than _high_
mindedness’ will render the equivoke. Thus, then, it appears that these
aphorisms are all closely related to one another, or, at any rate, hang
on the same thread of argument. The existence of oppression makes the
wise man mad by reason of disappointed hopes, and destroys his purpose;
but he must wait to see the end, and be patient. ‘Good’ has occurred
in seven paradoxical relations, having the appearance of evil. The
same strain is continued in the following, but the argument is somewhat
different).

9 Be not hasty in thy spirit │ Do not be in haste to be
to be angry: for anger resteth │ disappointed; for disappointment
in the bosom of fools. │ nestles in the bosom of the
│ befooled.

(9.) =Do not hasten in thy spirit to be angered= (by disappointment),
=for anger in the bosom of befooled ones rests.=

10 Say not thou, What is │ Do not say either, How was it
_the cause_ that the former │ that former days were so good
days were better than these? │ as compared with these? because
for thou dost not inquire │ it is not wisdom which prompts
¹wisely concerning this. │ you to inquire in this way.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ out of wisdom. │

(10.) =Do not say= (אל, the particle of prohibition being repeated,
this second is equivalent to ‘neither say’) =what was= (how was it)
=that the days= (with the article, and therefore generic), =the former
ones= (again generic, in strict apposition) =were good ones beyond
these= (the whole construction of the sentence shows that the _Laudator
temporis acti_ is here specially reprehended), =because not from
wisdom= (_i.e._ the _wisdom_ of such an inquiry is here negatived)
=thou askest= (שאל is to ask in the sense of wishing to have――Exodus
iii. 22) =upon= (or about) =this.=

11 ¶ Wisdom ¹_is_ good with │ As good is wisdom as an
an inheritance: and _by it │ inheritance, and something
there is_ profit to them that │ more, to those who see the
see the sun. │ sunshine;
│
¹ _Or_, as good as an │
inheritance, yea, better │
too. │

(11.) =A good= is =wisdom= (the two nouns both abstracts or in strict
agreement) =together with an inheritance, and a profitable thing= (וְיֹתֵר,
which the Masorets point as a participle, not יתרון, which would give
a different idea, _i.e._ a ‘profit generally,’ which, in the sense
of this book, wisdom is not always, for it fails, through unforeseen
accidents, of always attaining its end, and sometimes perishes like
folly; but with an inheritance, wisdom to know how to use it is
always a real advantage in some way even in this life, and hence the
qualification) =to= those =that see the sun= (generic, as a sun which
is light and warmth indeed, but also glare and heat).

12 For wisdom _is_ a │ for the shelter of wisdom is
¹defence, _and_ money _is_ a │ just as the shelter of money:
defence: but the excellency of │ but the profit of knowledge
knowledge _is_, _that_ wisdom │ is, the wisdom that enables its
giveth life to them that have │ possessor to live.
it. │
│
¹ _Hebrew_ shadow. │

(12.) =For in shadow= of =the wisdom= is =in shadow= of =the silver.=
(The sentence, whichever way we take it, is enigmatical, as indeed the
form shows. The LXX. render _ad sensum_, ‘Because in her shadow, wisdom
is as the shadow of silver,’ but very probably not because they read
differently, this rendering merely gives the equivoke; for the literal
meaning of the sentence, as it stands in the text, is, ‘_Because in the
shadow of wisdom_ generically, _is the same as to be in the shadow of
money._’ The idea of shadow arises naturally from that of _sunshine_,
spoken of above; for we must remember that in the East, shadow is
always desired, and it is to the natives of southern Europe and Asia
the symbol of pleasant refreshment. Shadow and sun are cognate
ideas――see Psalms xci. 1, Isaiah xxxii. 2. Again, the root כסף has the
meaning to desire earnestly――see Job xiv. 15, Psalms xvii. 12; hence
the further play upon the words.) =And a profit of a knowledge of the
wisdom?= (generic, this special wisdom, but the passage might also be
rendered, and a ‘profit of knowledge, it is wisdom which,’ etc.) it
=enlivens its possessor.= (The Masorets, by accenting דַּ֔עַת with zakeph,
separate it from what follows, and so render as above. Thus the meaning
is――‘and there is this advantage in the knowledge of wisdom, it makes
its possessor live,’ or gives him life: but not absolutely so; this
appears from what follows.)

13 Consider the work of │ Consider then, with regard
God: for who can make _that_ │ to the working of the Almighty,
straight, which he hath made │ that none is able to explain
crooked? │ with regard to what He has made
│ complex.

(13.) =See= (as the verb stands first, this is the emphatic word in
the sentence, equivalent, therefore, to ‘observe, however’) =with
respect to the working of the Deity, for who is enabled to set in
order= (occurs chapters i. 15, xii. 9 only, and is a word peculiar
to Ecclesiastes; it is used in the technical sense of ‘resolve,’ or
‘account for,’ a providential mystery) =with respect to that which=
(the LXX. give the force of this את here by the rendering ὃν ἂν ὁ Θεὸς)
=He hath involved it?= (עות, in hithpael, occurs Job xix. 6, chapters
i. 15, and xii. 3. The cognate עוה occurs nearly as often, and with the
same signification, which is the exact opposite of תקן, ‘to involve,’
‘make complex.’ ‘Who can resolve that with respect to which He has
determined that it shall be involved?’ is the precise meaning given by
the suffix to the verb.)

14 In the day of prosperity │ In the day then of good,
be joyful, but in the day of │ accept the good; in the day
adversity consider: God also │ of distress, discern: for the
hath ¹set the one over against │ one indeed hath the Almighty
the other, to the end that man │ appointed as the counterpart
should find nothing after him. │ of the other, for the very
│ purpose that Humanity should
¹ _Hebrew_ made. │ by no means be able to discover
│ anything of what is to result.

(14.) =In a day of good= (טובה, the abstract here having the meaning
of ‘prosperity’) =be in good= (which the LXX. render, ‘live in good,’
and as the root is repeated, we must render, _that_ good), =and in a
day of= (with the meaning, ‘and in a time also of’) =evil= (abstract
as above) =see= (emphatic, not only from the alliteration of רעה and
‎‏ראה, but from its being the same word at the end as at the beginning,
verse 13). =Moreover, with respect to this, to the counterpart= (לעמת,
see chapter v. 16 (15), where this word is discussed) =of that makes=
(_i.e._ so works) =the Deity, for the reason= (על דברת occurs chapters
iii. 18, vii. 14, viii. 2, and in the same sense ‘to the intent that’)
=he might not= (contract relative, with the negative, and involving its
usual subjunctive meaning) =find= even =humanity, his future= (_i.e._
that which comes after him or succeeds, whether this be due to his
own labour or otherwise) =anything= (which is reserved to the end of
the sentence, and is equivalent to ‘anything at all.’ Thus, then, the
transition to the next clause is quite manifest. It follows of course
that this uncertainty as to the result applies even in the case of
virtue and vice: this, therefore, is the topic next discussed).

15 All _things_ have I seen │ With regard to the whole of
in the days of my vanity: │ life, then, I have observed
there is a just _man_ that │ during the days of my
perisheth in his righteousness,│ evanescent existence that
and there is a wicked _man_ │ there may be a just man who
that prolongeth _his life_ in │ perishes by reason of his
his wickedness. │ justice, and there may be an
│ impious man who prolongs his
│ existence by his wrong.

(15.) =With regard to the whole= (with את and the article, ‘with regard
to the whole of life’ is therefore the meaning, as so often in this
book――see chapter i. 2) =I have observed in the days of my vanity=
(with the idea, therefore, ‘so far as my short experience goes’)
that =there is= (a person or thing) =made right=, yet =perishing in
his righteousness, and= that =there is= (as יש is repeated it becomes
emphatic, and thus we must render ‘there also is’) =an impious caused
to be prolonging= (himself) =in his mischief= (_i.e._ the hiphil
participle gives the idea that this prolongation of life by evil means,
or the like, is due to the wickedness itself: it is again the problem
of successful impiety; for the word מאריך compare Exodus xx. 12).

16 Be not righteous over │ Do not be then righteous to
much; neither make thyself │ excess, or make thyself wise
over wise: why shouldest thou │ too confidently: why shouldest
¹destroy thyself? │ thou be grievously disappointed?
│
¹ _Hebrew_ be desolate. │

(16.) =Do not be made right too much, and do not= (repeated, ‘do not
also’) =make thyself wise= (the hithpael occurs only Exodus i. 10, and
has a sinister meaning. Pharaoh’s policy with the children of Israel
was for the time dealing wisely, but also a ‘prolonging in wickedness’)
=to excess= (‘or over and above what is reasonable,’ expecting a
‘_profit_,’ יותר, from it, in that sense in which this word is used in
this book). =Wherefore shouldest thou be desolated?= (but the hithpolel
occurs Psalms cxliii. 4, Isaiah lix. 16, lxii. 5, Daniel viii. 27,
and in all cases with the idea of ‘consternation’ at an unexpected
and afflictive occurrence. Thus the meaning must be, ‘that this
righteousness overmuch, and wisdom beyond what is reasonable, will
disappoint.’ We must not then, in the days of our vanity, expect
too much from right actions; they may to all appearance prove as
disastrous as the most impious could be. In the same way impiety, that
is, high-handed and presumptuous rebellion against right, may succeed
so well that it may cause a prolongation of itself; the very word
is sarcastic, as pointing to an end of wrong at last. The inference
naturally seems to be――If this be so, what is the use of doing right
at all? but a deeply sarcastic refutation is given to this thought in
the succeeding clause).

17 Be not over much wicked, │ but then, do not be wicked to
neither be thou foolish: why │ excess either, and by no means
shouldest thou die ¹before thy │ become a clever fool: why
time? │ shouldest thou die when it is
│ not thy time?
¹ _Hebrew_ not in thy time. │

(17.) =Do not be impious to excess, and do not be= (the quadruple
repetition of the particle of prohibition gives emphasis to it,
especially at the close of the sentence――(1.) Do not be over right,
and (2.) do not be over wise either, (3.) nor impious either, nor
(4.) still less either a clever fool, are the four stages of the
argument; the emphatic תהי is reserved to the last clause here in this
member; in the former clause it stands first, giving it thus a still
further sarcastic emphasis, something like our ‘whatever you are do
not be’) =an elaborate fool= (סכל, compare chapters ii. 19, x. 3, 14;
and see the meaning of this term discussed there. This wickedness then,
it seems, is wise folly, or false prudence). =Wherefore shouldest thou
die in= what is =not your time?= The sarcasm is surely deep and cutting
which, covertly reminding the impious that he has yet to die, advises
him not to die before his time.

18 _It is_ good that thou │ It is good that thou shouldest
shouldest take hold of this; │ lay hold of the former;
yea, also from this withdraw │ moreover, of the latter, by no
not thine hand: for he that │ means let your hand touch it,
feareth God shall come forth │ for he that fears God comes out
of them all. │ safely with regard to all of
│ these.

(18.) =Good= it is =that= (full relative, referring to both the
following clauses) =thou layest hold of this, and, moreover, from
that do not withhold with respect to thine hand= (the root ינח occurs
chapters ii. 18, x. 4, xi. 6; see also Genesis ii. 15, xix. 16,
etc.――the precise meaning being, in all these cases, ‘to lay up.’ The
LXX. translate this word by μιαίνῃς, ‘defile;’ and hence consider the
word to refer to the second clause of the verse above; but it may be
doubted, as Schleusner points out, whether the rendering of the LXX. is
not a misreading of Symmachus’ μὴ ἀνῇς, which was successively altered
to μίανῃς and μὴ μίανῃς, so that with this before us we may well reject
their reading as not entitled to disturb our confidence in the Hebrew
text; observing also that it is את ידך, _i.e._ do not rest, or do not
lay it up, _with respect to_ thy hand; the conclusion is, do not touch
either the wickedness or the false prudence. The rendering of the
Authorized Version is ambiguous; it is not clear what the second ‘this’
refers to, but evidently admits of the meaning above. The whole drift
then of the aphorism is, ‘lay hold of right notwithstanding, and have
nothing to do with wickedness’). =For= he who =fears God goes out of=
(or ‘gets free from,’ as את follows) =with respect to all of them=
(_i.e._ the whole four difficulties here mentioned; he will neither be
over-expectant of an immediate result from his righteousness, nor of
his prudence; on the other hand, he will not be either impious, or an
elaborate fool).

19 Wisdom strengtheneth │ This wisdom is a better
the wise more than ten mighty │ defence to the wise than ten
_men_ which are in the city. │ powerful men within a fortress.

(19.) =The wisdom= (wisdom generically) =strengthens= (a play between
‎‏תאחז above and תעז here) =to the wise more than ten= persons who =have
been invested with power who are= (emphatic) =in a city.= Powerful men
in a city are hard to overcome, or get at; ten, the indefinite number,
gives the idea of ‘ever so many.’

20 For _there is_ not a just │ However, there is no single
man upon earth, that doeth │ man on earth so right that he
good, and sinneth not. │ always does good, and never
│ makes a wicked mistake.

(20.) =For a man= (a man, as a specimen of the race, which we have
already seen is the meaning of this word standing alone without the
article) =there is not= (for we have in this case אין, and not לא; thus
the meaning is, ‘there is not a single man’) =made right in the earth
who does good and does not sin= (_i.e._ ‘make wicked mistakes:’ hence,
as no man is perfectly right, it would be unreasonable to expect a
perfect result; thus the relevancy of verse 17 is apparent. If our
right acts do not always succeed, it is but just, considering the many
sins we all commit).

21 Also ¹take no heed unto │ Besides, to all those arguments
all words that are spoken; │ by which men direct themselves,
lest thou hear thy servant │ do not give much heed, just as
curse thee: │ thou hadst better not listen to
│ thy servant when he curses thee;
¹ _Hebrew_ give not thy │
heart. │

(21.) =Moreover= (an additional reason), to =all the words= (הדברים, in
the usual sense, and very emphatic as followed by the corresponding
verb) =which they speak= (reason about) =do not give thine heart=
(because they are not worth thinking about: the reason follows),
=which= (repeated, equivalent to ‘they are such that’) =not dost
thou hear= (‘as thou wouldest not listen to if’) =with respect to thy
servant= he was =cursing thee.=

22 For oftentimes also thine │ because thou knowest that
own heart knoweth that thou │ besides, times out of mind
thyself likewise hast cursed │ thyself also hast cursed――some
others. │ one else.

(22.) =For moreover, times many knows= (but the LXX. read ירע, κακώσει,
‘afflicts,’ that is, the servant does so. Symmachus also reads ὅτι
πρὸς πλεόνακις καιροῦ πονηρεύσεται καρδία σου, supporting the LXX.;
the Syriac, on the other hand, reads as the Hebrew. If, therefore, ירע
was the real reading, the change took place in ancient times) =thy
heart= (which is nominative to ידע) =which= (the third repetition of the
relative; it ought therefore to be taken in the meaning of ‘and this,’)
=also thou= (which is emphatic if we follow the Masorets, who point אַתָּ
in which apparently they are supported by both the LXX. and Symmachus)
=hast cursed others.=

Were it not for this suspicious אַתָּ there would be no reason at all to
disturb the present Hebrew text. Nor, probably, is the evidence strong
against it, unless indeed it should turn out, on further investigation
and discovery, that when the version of the LXX. was made, there was
a greater difference between the letters ר and ד than there is now. If
the reading of the LXX. were right, the following was the meaning of
the passage:――‘Moreover, to all the words which they speak [they being
supposed to refer to the wicked, hence the explanatory gloss of B,
ἀσεβεῖς], do not give thine heart,’――which [amounts to this]――‘thou
wouldest not hear (or listen to) with respect to thy servant cursing
thee, because many times he vexes thy heart, which [amounts to this
also] in regard that thou hast _cursed_ others.’ The innuendo being
that our reasonings with regard to God’s dealings with ourselves are
like the rash improper speeches of a grumbling servant. It must be
confessed that the expression, אשר גם את קללת, literally, ‘which also with
respect to thou hast cursed,’ is unprecedentedly harsh and elliptical,
even for Koheleth. But to alter the text――and the Masoretic punctuation
is here a virtual alteration of the text――is to interpret an imaginary
document, and not the one which exists before our eyes. The Masorets,
however, with their customary caution――and in this respect they are a
brilliant example to some modern critics――would not add a single letter,
on mere conjecture only, however plausible.

23 ¶ All this have I proved │ All this have I explored by
by wisdom: I said, I will be │ means of wisdom. I said, I
wise; but it _was_ far from me.│ shall be wise enough, but what
│ may be is altogether beyond
24 That which is far off, │ me! beyond me how far? a double
and exceeding deep, who can │ depth! how could any find it?
find it out? │

(23, 24.) =All this= (the Masorets point זֹה feminine, equivalent to
neuter) =have I tried with wisdom; I said I will be wise= (with ה
paragogic, and Taylor in his note observes that this form is optative,
and expresses a strong desire [Lange, _Commmentary on Old Testament_,
American edition]; might it not with truth be said that it is
the abstract idea of which the verb is the concrete, ‘I shall be
wisdomed’?), =but that was far from me= (but notice again רחוקה,
agreeing no doubt with חכמה understood, but not the less an abstract on
that account: it was _farness_ or _distance itself_ from me――‘beyond my
reach’ is the meaning), =a distant= thing, =what= is it =which it will
be= (that is, that he could not reach by wisdom to discern what the
future might be), =and deep, deep= (‘doubly deep,’ very emphatic), =who
will find it out?= (as these questions expect the answer, No, they are
equivalent to ‘a distant _thing_! is not it, the future, indeed? and a
vast depth which none can discover.’)

This concludes this part of the discourse, as is evident from the
formula, ‘I turned round, I and my heart,’ with which the following
passage begins; that which is to succeed is a personal experience of
another kind.

25 ¹I applied mine heart │ To come to another point then,
to know, and to search, and │ in my own experience of
to seek out wisdom, and the │ knowledge and investigation: I
reason _of things_, and to │ mean the discovery of wise and
know the wickedness of folly, │ prudent experiments by which
even of foolishness _and_ │ one may recognise wickedness
madness: │ as folly, and false-prudence
│ as mad disappointment.
¹ _Hebrew_ I and my heart │
compassed. │

(25.) =I turned round= (to do something, as this formula always
implies), =I and my heart= (for we have here a _confession_) =to know=
and =to investigate= (that is in order to know, etc., the prepositions
being repeated) =and seek= (without a preposition; the distinction
seems to be that the seeking is to be the consequence of the above
investigation) =wisdom and device= (חשבון is exclusively a Koheleth word,
and occurs verse 27, ix. 10, only, it is thus not easy to determine its
precise meaning, but it is probably, as Moses Stuart points out, the
opposite of הללות; and if so, it will be something reasonable, in the
sense of wise or well-formed and successful plan, as its opposite is
an ill-formed and disappointing one; thus השבונות――occurs only here,
verse 29, and 2 Chronicles xxvi. 15, where it is used to denote Asa’s
engines of war――is evidently ‘efficient contrivances.’ To know wisdom
and _a device_, then, in this sense, is ‘wisdom how to obtain a
reasonable or proper result; and, on the other hand, to discover the
opposite.’ With this accords what follows), =and to know= (as this
is repeated it is equivalent to, and so to know) =wickedness= (as)
=folly= (כֶסֶל――the only instance of the occurrence of this form in
Ecclesiastes――compare Job viii. 14, xxxi. 24, where we find that
‘expectation’ is the meaning, though not necessarily in a bad sense,
yet clearly so here. The LXX. render ἀσεβοῦς ἀφροσύνην [which E. X.
alter to εὐφροσύνην], ‘the folly of a wicked person’) =and the false
wisdom= (plural form in ות――with the article) =follies= (הוללות, as
we have seen, compare chapter i. 17, of the disappointing kind. The
LXX. render here ὀχληρίαν, ‘trouble,’ and περιφοράν, ‘madness,’ with
καὶ ‘and,’ which is so far wrong, as there is no conjunction in the
original. The meaning of this passage it is no doubt difficult to
discover, but if we are right in the above analysis the interpretation
must be as follows: ‘I turned myself round, I and my heart――(or, my own
personal experience) to know and to investigate, and so seek, wisdom
and well-formed plans: and so to recognise a wicked folly; and [a
series of] falsely-wise acts, [which were] disappointing follies.’
The punctuation represents the accents, the larger distinctive accents
being represented by the longer pauses. The Syriac reads (‡ Syriac
phrase), ‘to know the wickedness of the fool, and folly and _adultery_,’
which coincides with the above; a reason for the peculiar rendering
‘adultery’ will appear presently).

26 And I find more bitter │ Now, I have made a discovery,
than death the woman, whose │ and that more bitter than
heart _is_ snares and nets, │ death; it is with respect
_and_ her hands _as_ bands: │ to woman, when she is in the
¹whoso pleaseth God shall │ nature of an ensnarer, her
escape from her; but the │ affection seductions, and her
sinner shall be taken by her. │ hands bondage. A real good in
│ the sight of the Almighty is it
¹ _Hebrew_ _He that is_ good │ to be delivered from her, but
before God. │ the erring sinner is taken by
│ such as she.

(26.) =And finding= (a participle written full, giving a peculiar
emphasis to this word) =am I a bitterness above death with respect to
the woman= (את with the article, which the LXX. note by σὺν, as usual;
thus ‘woman’ is generic, hence the precise idea seems to be ‘and a
discovery of mine more bitter than death――is with respect to woman;’
and, again, this follows the accentuation, which makes a pause at
‘death,’) =who= (but the relative is full, and so refers back to the
whole clause, ‘when she’) =is snares= (masculine plural, and hence
distributive, ‘in the nature of an ensnarer’ then, see Proverbs xii. 12,
chapter ix. 14, where this form alone מצודה in the feminine occurs,
chapter ix. 12, Isaiah xxix. 7, Ezekiel xix. 9, and with shurek at Job
xix. 6; there is a slight difference in meaning in these forms) =and
allurements= (the root חרם is to destroy, and the noun signifies ‘a
cursed thing’ as often as a ‘net;’ see Deuteronomy vii. 26, Joshua
vi. 17) =her heart= (singular following plural; her heart then is in
the nature of things which allure to destruction, a whole armoury of
them, as it were, in her love) =and bonds= her =hands= (or ‘powers’);
=good in the sight of Divine providence= (‘a real good is it in the
sight of Divine providence’ is the meaning) =is deliverance from her=
(emphatic), =but the erring one= (a full participle, which the LXX.
note) =is taken by her= (emphatic).

27 Behold, this have I │ _Observe_, this have I
found, saith the Preacher, │ discovered, and this is
¹_counting_ one by one, to │ what the Preacher announces,
find out the account: │ one after another, so as to
│ find out a wise experiment;
28 Which yet my soul │ but which I have longed for
seeketh, but I find not: one │ without discovering: one
man among a thousand have I │ single specimen of Humanity in
found; but a woman among all │ a thousand I discovered; but
those have I not found. │ a woman in all these I did not
│ discover.
¹ _Or_, _weighing_ one thing │
after another to find out │
the reason. │

(27, 28.) =Observe this, have I found the speech of Koheleth= (it is
usually said that אמרה is a feminine agreeing with קהלת, but קהלת was
a king, and so certainly masculine. It has been proposed to write אמר
‎‏הקהלת, but this is another instance of the attempt to cut the knot by
altering the text, besides in that case Koheleth would be generic.
We must therefore fall back upon the usual meaning of feminines as
the abstract of the masculines. Now, אמר is ‘to say,’ to ‘announce,’
and therefore the abstract will be ‘the announcement;’ this abstract,
however, stands by itself, and is not joined closely to קהלת, as in
that case it would have been אמרת. Attending then to these principles
of grammar, the meaning will be, ‘observe this, I have found it, and
announce it as Koheleth,’ an additional proof that here we have a
personal experience of Koheleth’s) =one to one to find a wise result=,
(that is collecting instance after instance, or trying one method after
another so as to find the wise result, in contrast to the disappointing
folly mentioned above) =which yet seeks my soul=, and =has not
found= (the ‘not’ is emphatic, and denies that he has discovered it:
experimental science did no more for him than moral); =a man= (אדם;
we should have anticipated איש from the context, but אדם includes both
sexes, so that we have a sarcastic equivoke) =a single one from a
thousand have I found, but a woman in all these have I not found= (that
is, that he could come to no general conclusion; only in his experience
he had met with one man but not with one woman, the allusion being
evidently to his thousand wives and concubines. From this individual
history we are allowed to make our own conclusions. In the case of
Solomon, it was his numerous wives which turned away his heart. He had
apparently one or two male friends, such as Zadoc and Nathan, that he
could trust. The word ‘found’ occurs seven times in its different
forms――it is _all_ he could discover).

29 Lo, this only have I │ Only observe, this I have
found, that God hath made man │ discovered, namely, that the
upright; but they have sought │ Almighty has with respect to
out many inventions. │ humanity done what is correct,
│ but _they_ have sought out
│ machinations without number.

(29.) =Only= (which standing first is emphatic: ‘This _alone_ is a
real discovery, or a safe induction from my numerous trials’) =observe,
this have I discovered, which= is that he has =made= even =the Deity
with respect to the man= (_i.e._ ‘has done in regard to man,’ the LXX.
notice this by σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον) =right= (or ‘correct,’ see 1 Samuel
vi. 12, Proverbs xi. 3), =but they= (plural following singular――‘every
one of them’) =seek devices= (plural abstract, and as it is used
evidently in a sinister sense, we may translate ‘machinations’) =many=
(masculine, notwithstanding the feminine plural, _i.e._ not many in the
abstract, ‘but many a one’――all kinds of sinister plans to evade God’s
right order, of which Solomon’s harem was a signal instance. He would
have had more real enjoyment had he obeyed the rule at Genesis ii. 24,
which assigns one man to one woman, and the spirit of that at Leviticus
xxi. 1, which enjoins a Hebrew woman. This harem of strange women was
at once Solomon’s most elaborate folly, bitterest disappointment, and
saddest fall: it was an experiment in search of happiness, running
counter to God’s just and right commands, and proved a most miserable
failure; and the only conclusion which could be drawn from it was, that
God’s way is invariably the best. The connexion with the following will
be best understood if we consider it a reflection on his own failure).

CHAPTER VIII.

WHO _is_ as the wise _man_? │ AH, then, who is really wise,
and who knoweth the │ and who knows how to solve the
interpretation of a thing? a │ enigma of this matter? that
man’s wisdom maketh his face │ wisdom of humanity which
to shine, and ¹the boldness of │ enlightens his face, for the
his face shall be changed. │ haughty face is detestable.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ the strength. │

♦VIII. (1.) =Who is as the wise=? (the LXX., rendering _ad sensum_,
translate τίς οἶδεν σοφούς, ‘who knows wise men or things?’ which
E. and X. alter to σοφίαν, ‘wisdom.’ ‘Who is as _the_ wise?’ or, as
‎‏מי stands first, ‘ah, who is really wise?’ There is a double meaning
here――a lamentation over his own failure, and a natural reflection
on the superior wisdom of _the_ Wise One, or, as we should write, the
Omniscient) =and who= (‘and who too’) =knows a solution= (פשר occurs
Daniel ii. 4, 5, 6, etc., but in that prophet only, and is used to
signify the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, hence LXX. λύσις)
=of a reason=: (who then is so wise that he knows how to solve the
matter, or give it its true interpretation? The answer follows) =that
wisdom of a man enlightens= (but as חכמה follows חכם, it rises into
importance, ‘that wisdom of a man which enlightens’) =his countenance=
(there is a manifest allusion here to Proverbs xvi. 15, and the meaning
of ‘enlightens his face’ is, ‘gives him favour or satisfaction’),
=but= the =strength of his face= (which has the meaning of sternness
or wilfulness, see Deuteronomy xxvii. 50) =is hated= (the Masorets
propose the alteration from יְשֻׁנֶא to יְשֻׁנֶּה; but this was because they did
not understand the context; the LXX. render ἀναιδὴς προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ
μισηθήσεται, ‘but a man of shameless countenance will be hated,’ and
also the Syriac, but strictly ישנא is impersonal, ‘one hates.’ The
meaning then, read in the light of Proverbs xvi. 15, evidently is, that
obstinacy is that which a king hates, and of course _a fortiori_ the
Divine King).

♦ “VII.” replaced with “VIII.”

♠ “προσώπου” replaced with “προσώπῳ”

2 I _counsel thee_ to keep │ As for me, a royal word observe,
the king’s commandment, and │ and upon reasoning about the
_that_ in regard of the oath │ Divine decree, do not hasten.
of God. │

(2.) =I= (emphatic, none of the ancient versions take any notice
of this emphatic pronoun, a reason for which will appear presently)
=the mouth of a king= (not the king, thus the literal meaning is,
‘I, a king’s word’) =keep= it (the explanation is to be found in the
equivocal use of the word ‘king,’ which has an undertone of reference
to the Great King: compare also chapter ii. 12, and observe how
excellently a word of counsel suits the passage. The meaning therefore
is, I will give you a royal word to keep, or guard), and =upon
reasoning= (על דברת, see chapter iii. 18, and with the same meaning
‘upon the reasonings about,’ the Masorets put a strong distinctive
accent on וְעַ֕ל, thus separating it from the following words, but this
was because they did not see the exact meaning) =the oath of God= (see
Deuteronomy vii. 8, Jeremiah xi. 5; the oath of God then is that which
God has determined on, and we are especially to regard this, and take
care that we use no hasty words or expressions about it).

3 Be not hasty to go out │ From His presence canst thou go?
of his sight: stand not in │ Do not rest on any evil word,
an evil thing; for he doeth │ for all that His providence
whatsoever pleaseth him. │ ordains He does;

(3.) =Do not hasten= (this the LXX. and Syriac join on to the preceding
verse, against the accentuation of the Masorets, and this makes better
sense) =from his face thou shalt go= (but as ‘face’ is the emphatic
word, it is clear that the clause is in the nature of a question,
or rather with a note of admiration, _i.e._ ‘From his face are you
going!’), =do not stand= (‘abide,’ or ‘stay’) =in a reason which is an
evil one for all he provides= (יחפץ, the verb, of which חפץ is the root,
and which invariably means ‘Divine providence’ in this book) =he does=
(he always acts, therefore, according to the pleasure of his Divine
providence).

4 Where the word of a king │ in Whose royal word is
_is_, _there is_ power: and │ authority, and who dare say to
who may say unto him, What │ Him, What doest Thou?
doest thou? │

(4.) =In whom= (or ‘in which,’ for it refers back to the whole idea of
God’s providence) =the matter of a king= is =powerful= (_i.e._ a power,
‘matter,’ דבר as usual being taken in its technical sense of the matter
reasoned about and the matter itself. The LXX. invert the order of
the words――a very unusual proceeding with them: it is, however, to be
observed that B. omits λαλεῖ, the word out of place), =and who shall
say to him, What doest thou?=

5 Whoso keepeth the │ Whoso keeps the commandment
commandment ¹shall feel no │ will not know a reason which
evil thing: and a wise man’s │ leads to wrong. For a wise
heart discerneth both time and │ heart does know that there is
judgment. │ a time and a judgment;
│
¹ _Hebrew_ shall know. │

(5.) =One keeping the command= (a participle, that which is commanded)
=does not know a matter= (as above) which is =evil, and time and
judgment knows= (repeated; thus the exact meaning is, ‘but time and
judgment’) =the heart of a wise man= (‘does know’).

6 ¶ Because to every purpose │ because to every providence
there is time and judgment, │ there is a time and a judgment;
therefore the misery of man │ because also, the wrong of
_is_ great upon him. │ Humanity is great upon him;

(6.) =For to every providence there is a time and a judgment= (that
is, a proper season for its occurrence, and a time when it will be
shown to be in the economy of providence), =for the wrong of man=
(generic, with the article) =is much upon him= (the LXX. here read דעת,
‘knowledge,’ γνῶσις; Symmachus and the Syriac read as the Hebrew. On
the whole, however, it appears that the text is fully entitled to stand
undisturbed, as it makes better sense, and, supposing an error in the
LXX., it might so readily occur from a misreading of letters so much
alike as ד and ר. The older forms, however, of these two letters were
not so much alike, as is shown by the Moabite stone, and hence caution
is required in coming to a judgment; but further, γνῶσις has already
been used in a bad sense, see chapter i. 18).

7 For he knoweth not that │ and because, he is not one who
which shall be: for who can │ knows what may be; and because,
tell him when it shall be? │ _how_ it will be, none can tell
│ him.

(7.) =For he is not knowing= (that is, man is not a creature that knows)
=what will be= (contract relative with the verb): =for how it will be,
who can tell him?= (the particle כי is introduced four times, and each
introduces an additional reason strengthening what went before. Thus
the wise heart will not know a matter which is bad――will not allow,
that is, that in its nature it is so, and he does know that there is an
appointed time and judgment which will set all right. First, because to
every providence whatever there is such a time and judgment; secondly,
because there is so much evil amongst mankind, which of course needs
rectification, and will have it, see chapter iii. 15; and because he
cannot tell what will be, and so right may be discovered and providence
vindicated in the future; and lastly, because as none can predict the
result of any event, so he is an imperfect judge concerning it. This
impotence of man is further set forth in what follows).

8 _There is_ no man that │ No man has power over the
hath power over the spirit │ spirit to restrain the spirit;
to retain the spirit; neither │ and there is no powerfulness in
_hath he_ power in the day │ the day of death; and there is
of death: and _there is_ no │ no putting off the weapons in
¹discharge in _that_ war; │ that warfare: but by no means
neither shall wickedness │ will _Impiety_ deliver those
deliver those that are given │ that resort to _it_.
to it. │
│
¹ _Or_, casting off │
_weapons_. │

(8.) =There is nothing= in (that is, There is not a single) =man caused
to have power= (LXX. ἐξουσιάζων) =with the spirit= (the LXX. render
with ἐν, ‘in’) =to the restraint of= (כלא‎――1 Samuel vi. 10; Jeremiah
xxxii. 3――is used of restraint in prison) =with respect to the spirit=
(‎‏את with the article, and the noun repeated, making it exceedingly
emphatic, which the LXX. note by their customary σὺν: ‘to have any
restraint with respect to that same spirit’ is the meaning) =and there
is no power= (that is, ‘power to rule or direct’) =in the day of death,
and there is no discharge= (occurs Psalms lxxviii. 49) =in the warfare,
and not delivers= (this standing first is emphatic; it is equivalent
to ‘but _this_ does not deliver’) even =impiety in respect of its lord=
(or, as our idiom would put it, ‘but impiety will not deliver those who
resort to it’).

9 All this have I seen, and │ With respect to all this I
applied my heart unto every │ have observed, with regard to
work that is done under the │ all the works which are done
sun: _there is_ a time wherein │ in this work-day world――and
one man ruleth over another to │ greatly am I impressed by it――a
his own hurt. │ time when humanity has a power
│ over itself to injure itself.

(9.) =With respect to all this I have seen,= (_i.e._ ‘observed’),
=and setting= myself (infinitive absolute. Zöckler says the infinitive
absolute with copula prefixed indicates an action contemporaneous with
the main verb; hence the LXX. render ἔδωκα ... εἰς), =with respect to
my heart, to all the working which= (full relative) =is done= (niphal)
=under the sun, the time which= (the LXX. apparently take no notice
of עת, but render as if they had read את אשר; but if we take עת as in
apposition to תהת ה״, and notice that אשר is repeated, we shall see that
the sense is ‘I mean with regard to that time when,’ etc.) =rules= (or
has power) =the man= (mankind generally) =by a man to an injury to him=
(not exactly with the meaning of one man injuring another, but rather,
that when humanity has any power over itself in the person of other men,
it uses this power to injury for the most part, an instance of which
follows).

10 And so I saw the wicked │ And on this wise: I have seen
buried, who had come and gone │ the wicked honourably buried,
from the place of the holy, │ who used to come and go from
and they were forgotten in the │ the place of the holy, and were
city where they had so done: │ praised in the city where they
this _is_ also vanity. │ had done this: an instance this
│ of the evanescent.

(10.) =And in this wise= (ובכן, occurs only Esther iv. 16, in the sense
of ‘in this way’) =I have observed wicked ones= (not _the_ wicked,
but continually instances of the impiously wicked) =sepulchres= (the
Masorets point with ♣kubbutz, the ♦pual participle, the only other
instance of which occurs 1 Kings xiii. 31; but there the participle
is full: we cannot therefore accept the Masoretic pointing as
authoritative; it really amounts to an alteration of the unpointed
text. The LXX. considered קברים a noun plural, accusative to ובאו, and
translate εἰς τάφοῦς ♠εἰσαχθέντας, ‘carried into the tombs’) =and they
entered= (I would seek an explanation of the difficulty here in the
occurrence of this conjunction ‘and,’ of which a similar instance is
found at chapter ii. 15, ‘so they entered a place ... and they are
going,’ etc.; _i.e._ ‘did this as a habit’) =and from a place of
the hallowed one= (participle) =they go.= (The rendering of the LXX.
is easily explained; they translate as they do, because we have a
past tense joined with a present――יהלקו, thus giving the meaning of
imperfects. As the wicked could not be said to go after death into
the sepulchre, they rendered by a passive, ‘were taken,’ or because
they wished it to be made plain that it was not a mere entering and
departing, but that the wicked were buried, _i.e._ honoured, in their
graves). =And they were forgotten in the city in which= (full relative,
because it does not refer closely to the city only; they were forgotten,
not as regards that particular city, but as a general proposition)
=thus they did= (but twenty MSS. and all the ancient versions, except
the Syriac, in place of וישתכחו, ‘were forgotten,’ read ישתבחו, ‘praised,’
which not only makes better sense, but accounts for the hithpael with
its reflexive signification. Symmachus reads, ‘And when they had gone
round in the holy place, they returned, being praised in the city
where they had so done’――καὶ ὅποτε περιῆσαν ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ ἀνέστρεφον
ἐπαινούμενοι ἐν τῇ πόλει.――See Field’s _Hexapla_, p. 396. He also gives
the explanatory gloss, ὡς δίκαια πράξαντες, ‘as those who had done
well.’ Hence, then, on the whole, we should prefer to take in substance
the LXX.’s rendering, and look upon this as setting forth a salient
example of successful hypocrisy. After all, the forced renderings of
certain critics are in effect alterations of the text, or yield no
sense at all. The remark) =This also= is =vanity= (equivalent to ‘this
then is besides, an instance of evanescence or transitoriness,’ is very
striking and appropriate at this point, as also what succeeds).

♣ “kibbutz” replaced with “kubbutz”

♦ “paul” replaced with “pual”

♠ “εἰσαχθεντες” replaced with “εἰσαχθέντας”

11 Because sentence against │ It amounts to this, however:
an evil work is not executed │ there is no speedy execution of
speedily, therefore the heart │ sentence for doing evil, and so
of the sons of men is fully │ the heart of the human race is
set in them to do evil. │ thus encouraged in them to do
│ that evil;

(11.) =Which= (standing at the beginning of a period is emphatic, and
thus the subject of the whole. ‘It amounts to this’ would render it
well) =there is nothing done as a sentence= (occurs Esther i. 20) =of
doing the evil speedily, therefore full= is the =heart of the sons of
man in them to the doing of an evil= (that is, ‘It amounts to this,
there is nothing inflicted as a penalty of doing the evil [_i.e._ evil
generally] speedily; on that account filled is the heart of men within
them in order to do that evil, the word evil being repeated’).

12 ¶ Though a sinner do │ which, however, is a wicked
evil an hundred times, and │ mistake merely because there
his _days_ be prolonged, yet │ is time and a prolongation of
surely I know that it shall │ impunity; for I am perfectly
be well with them that fear │ assured that it must be
God, which fear before him: │ well with those who fear the
│ Almighty,

(12.) =Which= (repeated at the beginning of a clause, equivalent
therefore to ‘And it also amounts to this’) =a sinning= (חטא, which the
Masorets point as a participle, and the LXX. confirm, rendering by a
verb) =doing an evil a hundred= (so stands the text at present, but it
clearly was not so in the text which the ancient versions used, all of
which read differently, except the Syriac, which follows the Hebrew.
The LXX. read either מאן or מעת. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion read
‎‏מות. Jerome remarks the difficulty; and the Syriac Hexapla shows that
the text needed emendation at an early time. We believe the LXX. have
preserved the right reading; moreover, that they took אריך as a noun
in the sense of ‘prolongation,’ like אסיר, ‘a prisoner,’ Genesis xxxix.
20, 22; זעיר, ‘a little,’ Job xxxvi. 2, Isaiah xxviii. 10 and 13; for
‎‏ומאריך is not a participle hiphil, but is really the substantive אריך
with מ. When, however, this word was taken as a hiphil, מעת became
unintelligible, and was altered by conjecture to מאת, or מות; hence the
meaning is not) =caused to be prolonged= (as it stands in the text,
but rather ‘and from the prolongation’) =to him=: (emphatic, hence the
sense of the passage is, noticing the repetition of the מ, and the fact
that אשר also stands at the head of the verse, ‘And it amounts to this
as well: a wickedly mistaking one does evil from the time and from
the prolongation of it to HIM,’ _i.e._ ‘to the other above cited;’ and
hence the LXX. render αὐτῶν, also referring us back to the hypocritical
sinners spoken of above. Then follows a reason introduced with) =for in
addition= (besides its being a wicked mistake, a sin which it is always
folly to commit) =knowing am I= (_i.e._ ‘I do know, notwithstanding
appearances’) =this= also, =it will be a good to the fearers of God
who= (but full relative repeated, and so with the meaning ‘because they
are those who’) =fear= (emphatic, with double _jud_) =before him.=

13 But it shall not be well │ just because they do fear
with the wicked, neither shall │ before Him; and that it cannot
he prolong _his_ days, _which │ be good to the impious man, and
are_ as a shadow; because he │ he will not prolong his days,
feareth not before God. │ even like a shadow, because he
│ is _not_ one who fears before
│ God.

(13.) =And good= (repeated, ‘but good’) =it will not be to an impious=
person (or act) =and he will not cause to prolong days as a shadow=
(he does not prolong his days; they are prolonged indeed sometimes
by Divine providence in His inscrutable decrees, and they are as a
shadow,――a very impressive figure: the lengthened shadow of the old
sinner’s years so soon to end in darkness absolute) =which= (full
relative, in this equivalent to ‘because that’) =he is not a fearer
before God.=

14 There is a vanity which │ There is an instance of
is done upon the earth; that │ evanescence which occurs upon
there be just _men_, unto whom │ earth, and it is this: that
it happeneth according to the │ there are righteous persons to
work of the wicked; again, │ whom it results as if they had
there be wicked _men_, to whom │ acted like the impious; and,
it happeneth according to the │ on the other hand, there are
work of the righteous: I said │ impious persons to whom it may
that this also _is_ vanity. │ happen as though they had acted
│ like the righteous. So this,
│ said I, is another instance of
│ the transitory!

(14.) =There exists a vanity done= (_i.e._ which occurs or happens to
men) =under the sun= (the LXX. render by a perfect, πεποίηται), =which
is, that there exists righteous= (full relative) =which= (persons or
acts) =it reaches= (hiphil participle, Genesis xxviii. 12) =to them=
(emphatic) =according to the doing of the wicked ones=, (generic; they
attain the same ends as the wicked ones do, in this world at least,
for ‘under the sun’ is put in as a qualifying clause), =and there are
wicked ones which= it =reaches= (here we have the contract relative
instead of the full one above. So accurate a writer as Koheleth
could hardly have done this without reason. We have already noticed
the subjunctive sense the contract relative gives to the verb it
joins――possibly he intends a limitation; it is an occurrence which
_sometimes_ happens, the _rule_ however is after all the other way)
=to them according to the working= of the =righteous ones, I said which
also= (שגם――see chapter i. 17, ii. 15, the only other two instances in
which this combination occurs; it clearly gives an interrogatory force,
with a tone of surprise) is =vanity?=

15 Then I commended mirth, │ Then I, for my part, expressed
because a man hath no better │ a preference with regard to
thing under the sun, than to │ enjoyment, because there is
eat, and to drink, and to be │ no real good to a man in this
merry: for that shall abide │ work-day world, except to eat,
with him of his labour the │ and drink, and be delighted,
days of his life, which God │ and that same conjoined with
giveth him under the sun. │ his toil during the days of
│ his life; and because also
│ it is appointed to him of the
│ Almighty in this work-day world.

(15.) =And I praised, I myself, with respect to= (which the LXX. note
by σὺν adverbial) =the gladness= (which is both generic and abstract,
‘I came, that is, to a strong conclusion as to the value of present
happiness’), =because there is no good to a man under the sun, except
to eat, and to drink, and to rejoice, and that= (emphatic) =to abide
with him in= (or by means of) =his toil during the days of his life=
(_i.e._ no other real good except this gratification immediately
arising from the toil) =which= is =a gift to him= (emphatic) =of Divine
Providence= (and so not the result of his labour, but a mercy for which
he ought to thank God) =under the sun= (which is in this case reserved
to the end of the sentence, and indeed the period, for the next clause
is a summing up).

16 ¶ When I applied mine │ Whence it results, that having
heart to know wisdom, and to │ set my heart to know wisdom,
see the business that is done │ and to observe with regard to
upon the earth: (for also │ the uncertainty which is
_there is that_ neither day │ suffered upon earth (for indeed,
nor night seeth sleep with his │ by day and by night also, _rest_
eyes:) │ does no human eye behold)――

(16.) =As then I have given with respect to my heart= (with את) =to
the knowledge of wisdom, and to the appearances= (וְלִרְאוֹת; this infinitive
with וְ is peculiar to Ecclesiastes――occurs chapters iii. 18, v. 17, and
here; see the peculiar shade of meaning given by the conjunction) =with
respect to the anxiety= (see chapter i. 13; generic with את, of which,
however, the LXX. take no special notice) =which is done on earth=
(but we must write ‘endured upon earth’ to express the meaning, which
amounts to this, ‘As, then, I have given my heart to the knowledge of
wisdom, _i.e._ a scientific knowledge, with regard to the spectacle of
that anxious uncertainty which is suffered on the earth’), for =also
by day and by night sleep= (the Masorets with great taste put ‘sleep’
in a clausule by itself) =with his eyes he is not seeing= (_i.e._ this
uncertainty is incessant).

17 Then I beheld all the │ so I perceive, with respect to
work of God, that a man cannot │ the whole working of the
find out the work that is done │ Almighty, how impossible is it
under the sun: because though │ for humanity to discover the
a man labour to seek _it_ out, │ working out of anything with
yet he shall not find _it_; │ respect to what is done within
yea farther, though a wise │ this work-day world. Yet it is
_man_ think to know _it_, yet │ on account of this that man
shall he not be able to find │ toils, that he may seek it
_it_. │ out, but he does not discover
│ it: and if he thinks wisdom
│ will enable him to know it,
│ it is not sufficient for the
│ discovery either.

(17.) =And I saw= (so I saw, the apodosis of the above) =with respect
to all the working of Divine providence, how that is not able= (_not_
is emphatic) =humanity to the finding out of= (‘or a discovery’ of)
=with regard to= (the LXX. again write σὺν) =the work= (generic) =which
is done= (or suffered, or endured, as being a niphal) =under the sun,
because of= (בשל occurs Jonah i. 7 only) =which toils humanity in order
to seek it, and does not find it; and also if he says the wisdom=
(_i.e._ wisdom generically) =to know it= (‘that wisdom is given him to
know it’) =he is not able= (or rather not enabled) =to find it.= בשל
in this place is no doubt used to express a new idea, ‘for this,’ or
‘which cause.’ The object of man’s toil, _i.e._ the object he has in
his labour, is to find out some method by which he may rectify what
appears wrong in the course of God’s providence: in the strict sense
of the term this is impossible. The principle which pervades Koheleth’s
reasoning is, that enjoyment, as such, is God’s gift, and that toil is
useless. Labour, however, which is distinguished from toil, is to be
done in the fear of God, and the result left to his providence. The
argument which is to follow further enforces this.

CHAPTER IX.

FOR all this ¹I considered │ FOR with respect to all this,
in my heart even to declare │ I have laid to my heart that
all this, that the righteous, │ which is to be deduced from it
and the wise, and their works, │ all, which is, that right and
_are_ in the hand of God: no │ wisdom, and any service they
man knoweth either love or │ can render, are in the hand of
hatred _by_ all _that is_ │ the Almighty, and whether [an
before them. │ event be an indication of His]
│ love or displeasure either, no
¹ _Hebrew_ I gave _or_ set │ man knows from anything he sees
to my heart. │ before him,

IX. (1.) =For with respect to all this, I have given it to= (אל, not
‎‏את, which the LXX. render by εἰς) =my heart, and to sift out= (occurs
here only, but compare chapter iii. 18) =with respect to all this= (but
the LXX., dividing the words differently, evidently read ולבי ראת כל זה,
which would mean, ‘when that heart was seeing all this.’ The number
of various readings――see Stier and Theile, _Polyglot_――show that
this passage was early one of difficulty. The rendering of Symmachus,
preserved by Jerome, ‘omnia ita statui [fort. ἔταξα] in corde meo ut
ventilarem universa,’ conveys the meaning; which is, that Koheleth
set to his heart that which is the result when the matter is entirely
sifted) =which is the righteous and the wise= (generic and plural, all
those things which are right or wise generally; ‘right and wisdom,’ as
we speak, is the meaning) =and their works= (_i.e._ what they produce,
or, better still, their ‘services’) are =in the hand of the Deity,
also love= (in the abstract), =also hatred= (also abstract, and גם
being repeated gives the idea of both love and hatred too) =is nothing,
knowing the man= (the negative belongs to the noun, not to the verb,
and so the meaning must be ‘there is _no man_ who does know.’ Moreover,
the two nominatives absolute, ‘love’ and ‘hatred,’ are the subjects of
the whole sentence, ‘as to love or hatred either, there is no man who
knows,’ or, better still, ‘to whom is made known,’ giving the import
to the participle) =the whole= (generic) =before them= (distributive
plural, any of them, equivalent then ‘to anything which is before
them’).

2 All _things come_ alike │ evanescence being that which
to all: _there is_ one event │ belongs to all. That which
to the righteous, and to the │ happens is just the same to
wicked; to the good, and to │ the right and to the wrong, to
the clean, and to the unclean; │ good [_and to bad_, LXX.], and
to him that sacrificeth, and │ to clean and to unclean, and
to him that sacrificeth not: │ to the sacrificer as to one
as _is_ the good, so _is_ │ who never sacrifices; as the
the sinner; _and_ he that │ good, so the erring sinner,
sweareth, as _he_ that feareth │ the forsworn as though he had
an oath. │ feared the oath.

(2.) =The whole= (but all the ancient versions read here הבל,
‘_vanity_,’ and this makes better sense; the error, for such we believe
it to be, in the Masoretic text, was one so likely to occur, that,
considering the strong weight of testimony in favour of the LXX., and
the far better sense it makes with the context, we may well adopt it.
As an additional reason for following the LXX., we notice that the
Syriac reads (‡ Syriac phrase) ‘all that is before him is vanity, all
just as that which is to all,’ combining, therefore, both readings
together. Thus it appears that the variation in the texts was a very
ancient one. If this reading be adopted, then combining it with the
words which follow) =as= (or like this same) =to all= (the meaning
will be ‘transitoriness is exactly the same to all,’ or ‘all alike
are equally transitory.’ If, however, we retain the Masoretic text
and pointing, a good sense is made. ‘_The whole_ is as it were to
all,’ namely) =a happening= which is =one to the righteous, and to
the impious, to the good= (the LXX. add here _to the bad_), =to the
clean, and to the unclean, to the sacrificer, and to one who has not
sacrificed; as is the good so the sinner= (but general, including
things as well as persons), =the forsworn as one who an oath fears.=

3 This _is_ an evil among │ This evil is in all which is
all _things_ that are done │ performed in this work-day
under the sun, that _there is_ │ world: that there is but one
one event unto all: yea, also │ event to all, and so the heart
the heart of the sons of men │ of the human race overflows
is full of evil, and madness │ with wrong, and foolish
_is_ in their heart while they │ anticipations are in their
live, and after that _they go_ │ inmost hearts while they live,
to the dead. │ and what succeeds――it belongs
│ to the _dead_.

(3.) =This wrong= is _in all which is done_ (niphal, and therefore
objective; men both do and suffer as though this were so) = under the
sun, how a happening= which is =one= (_i.e._ the same) =to all= (the
force of this reasoning is made apparent by what follows, as there
is no visible reward to these righteous persons as compared with the
wicked, wicked men presume); =and moreover, the heart of the sons of
Adam is full of= (‘overflows with’ would represent the idea) =evil,
and false expectations= (הוללות occurs chapter i. 17――see references;
the meaning deduced exactly suits this passage; it is the false hope
begotten of an evil action, a crime worse than a blunder, to invert a
celebrated aphorism) =in their hearts= (לבב is ‘the inmost heart’――see
Concordance, _sub voce_, for the shade of difference between לב and
‎‏לבב), =in their lives, and their future= (_i.e._ what comes afterwards)
=belongs to= (the preposition is אל, which the LXX. note, and render by
πρὸς) =the dead= (generic, with the article).

4 ¶ For to him that is │ For whoever he may be,
joined to all the living there │ he chooses altogether as
is hope: for a living dog is │ regarding the _living_, this
better than a dead lion. │ being his anticipation: for to
│ a dog alive it is indeed better
│ than the lion when he is dead.

(4.) =For whoever= (interrogative pronoun followed by אשר, compare
Exodus xxxii. 33; it has here the sense, ‘For whoever he be’) =chooses=
(the Kri reads ‘is joined to,’ which the LXX., Syriac, Targum, and
Symmachus all have; but this and the pointing as a pual is merely a
Masoretic conjecture: it would be better with the LXX. to take it in
an active sense, κοινωνεῖ, ‘participates.’ The Chetib is perfectly
intelligible, however, and is to be preferred) =towards= (אל, as in
verse 3) =all= (but כל is without the article; hence it has the meaning,
the ‘whole of’) =the lives= (with the article, and hence generic,
‘lives generally.’ Thus the meaning is, ‘For whoever he be, he is one
who chooses entirely with relation to the living’), =it is= (יש, it
exists as such) =an expectation= (בטחון, occurs 2 Kings xviii. 19, and
its parallel Isaiah xxxvi. 4 besides this place only, in the meaning
of a ‘confidence’ or ‘expectation,’ and this meaning gives excellent
sense here: ‘is his expectation that he will _live:_’ no man makes
plans on the supposition that he is going to _die_; he may indeed
provide for others after he is dead, but the horizon of his own hopes
is necessarily bounded by his life). =For= (an additional reason
confirming the above) =to a dog alive it is= (emphatic) =good above the
lion= (with the article, because this is generic; it is not _a_ lion,
but lion qualities generally), =the dead= (again generic, for the same
reason――‘a live dog is better than the lion when he is dead,’ is the
exact turn of thought).

5 For the living know that │ Yet the living are quite aware
they shall die: but the dead │ that they shall die; but the
know not any thing, neither │ dead are not aware of anything;
have they any more a reward; │ and they can have no further
for the memory of them is │ recompense, because a forgotten
forgotten. │ thing is their memorial:

(5.) =For the living= ones =are knowing that they will die= (this is an
additional reason to the above, and so may be rendered, ‘but the living
are certain that they will _die_‘), =but the dead= (plural, with the
article, ‘the dead persons generally’) =are not those who are knowing
anything= (it is not here, be it observed, the existence of knowledge
on the part of the dead which is denied, but that, from the author’s
point of view, the dead are persons who do not know anything: an
unevangelic sense has been given to this passage by not attending to
this distinction), =and there is nothing further to them= (emphatic)
which is a =hire= (or a reward in this life accruing to them as a
recompense for their toil), =because forgotten= (niphal in its usual
objective sense) is =their remembrance.=

6 Also their love, and their │ and then their love and their
hatred, and their envy, is now │ hatred also, and their envy as
perished; neither have they │ well, as far as this Present
any more a portion for ever in │ is concerned, are perished;
any _thing_ that is done under │ and there is no further
the sun. │ participation for them in the
│ age, in anything that may be
│ done within this work-day world.

(6.) =Moreover their love, moreover their hatred, moreover their
envy= (the triple repetition of גם brings this word into prominence,
equivalent to ‘their love also; yes, their hatred and envy too’) =in
this present= (כבר, see chapter i. 10, references; the word occurs
again in its technical sense of the ‘present state of things,’ and
makes excellent sense here), =perish= (abstract ‘is a thing perished’)
=in all which= (full relative) =is done under the sun.= On this follows
the most touching piece of sarcasm in the whole work. There is a force
and pungency about it which is very striking.

7 ¶ Go thy way, eat thy │ Go then, eat thy bread with
bread with joy, and drink thy │ gladness, and drink in good
wine with a merry heart; for │ heart thy wine, if in the
God now accepteth thy works. │ present the Almighty prospers
│ thy works.

(7.) =Go, eat= (_i.e._ enjoy) in =pleasure thy bread, and drink in
heart= of =good thy wine; for so in the present hath prospered the
Deity thy workings.=

8 Let thy garments be always │ At every opportunity let thy
white; and let thy head lack │ garments be white, and the oil
no ointment. │ to thy head do not spare.

(8.) =In all season= (עת, a providential season――see chapter iii. 1, 19)
=let them be= (even) =thy garments white= (it is hardly possible here,
when we remember the constant use in Scripture of _white_ garments, not
to discover one of those hidden allusions with which this book abounds
to a pure as alone a happy life; the garments of the sensualist and
drunkard are, in the emphatic language of the apostle, ‘spotted with
_the flesh_’), =and oil= (see chapter vii. 1, as the symbol of luxury
and wealth) =on thy head do not spare= (chapter iv. 8; ‘do not stint’
or ‘save it as for another time,’ is the meaning: ‘use it when you have
the occasion’).

9 ¹Live joyfully with the │ Enjoy life with that woman
wife whom thou lovest all the │ whom thou lovest, all the days
days of the life of thy vanity,│ of thy evanescent life, which
which he hath given thee under │ He grants thee in this hot
the sun, all the days of thy │ work-day world,――all these
vanity: for that _is_ thy │ evanescent days, I say, for
portion in _this_ life, and in │ _that_ is all thou canst
thy labour which thou takest │ possess in thy life, and from
under the sun. │ that toil thyself art toiling
│ ever in this same work-day
¹ _Hebrew_ See _or_ enjoy │ world.
life. │

(9.) =See lives together with the woman which thou lovest= (it is to
be remarked here that Koheleth speaks of a woman in the singular; the
idea thus implied is cognate with that of the white garments, it is
pure domestic love) =all the days of the lives of thy vanity= (_i.e._
thy evanescent life) =which= He =gives to thee= (the nominative is no
doubt the Deity; but as this nominative is so far off, the verb becomes
almost an impersonal) =under the sun all the days of thy vanity=
(repeated); =for that same is thy portion in lives in thy toil which
thou= (emphatic) =toilest at under the sun= (repeated, and therefore
having the meaning, ‘under that same sun,’ the whole being thus
strictly limited to the horizon of this world).

10 Whatsoever thy hand │ All that thy hand finds to do,
findeth to do, do _it_ with │ to the utmost do it, because
thy might; for _there is_ │ there is no work, nor device,
no work, nor device, nor │ nor wisdom, nor knowledge in
knowledge, nor wisdom, in the │ the grave, and that is whither
grave, whither thou goest. │ thou art hastening.

(10.) =All which shall find thy hand in order to do= (that is,
everything which it is in thy power to perform in regard of the above),
=in thy might do it, because= there is =nothing= of =a work, or a
contrivance, or a knowledge, or a wisdom= (all these being without the
article, and singular) =in Sheol, which= (is the ‘place,’ or ‘end,’
etc.; for we have in English to supply some general word here) =thou=
(emphatic) =art going unto= (the meaning is, ‘and _that_ is whither
_thou_ art going unto’).

11 ¶ I returned, and saw │ But to return, I perceived
under the sun, that the race │ how in this work-day world that
_is_ not to the swift, nor the │ not to the swift ones is the
battle to the strong, neither │ race, nor to the strong ones
yet bread to the wise, nor yet │ the battle, nor even to wise
riches to men of understanding,│ ones bread, nor yet to prudent
nor yet favour to men of skill;│ ones wealth, nor yet to the
but time and chance happeneth │ instructed ones favour. For
to them all. │ time and chance happens with
│ regard to them all.

(11.) =I turned=, and =see under the sun= (‘see’ is rightly joined by
the accents to the word which follows it; it is, as this formula of
introduction shows, another aspect of the same truth as that set forth
above) =how not to swift= is =the race= (מרוץ, occurs here only), =and
not= to =mighty ones the war, and also not to wise ones bread, and also
not to prudent ones= (occurs Genesis xli. 33 of Joseph, and 1 Kings
iii. 12 of Solomon) =an increase, and not to knowing ones a favour=:
(these three nouns, ‘bread,’ etc., are singular and without the article,
the other two are with it), =for time= (the providential season, that
is) and =chance= (occurs 1 Kings v. 4 as a noun only; the meaning
of the verb, which occurs frequently, is, ‘to meet,’ ‘to approach’)
=happens with respect to= (את, which the LXX. notice by making the verb
compound, συναντήσεται) =all.=

12 For man also knoweth not │ For so also Humanity knows not
his time: as the fishes that │ its time, but just like fishes
are taken in an evil net, and │ which have been caught in a
as the birds that are caught │ net, or birds held fast in a
in the snare; so _are_ the │ snare, just like them the sons
sons of men snared in an evil │ of men are ensnared in some
time, when it falleth suddenly │ evil time, as it falls upon
upon them. │ them――suddenly.

(12.) =For also not knows= (it is the verb which is here negatived)
=the man= (humanity) =his time= (with את, which the LXX. note by the
article), =as fishes which may be caught= (contract relative and plural
niphal) =in a net, the evil one= (an evil net), =and like also birds=
when =caught in a snare= (notice the difference between שנאחזים, which
is niphal participle plural, occurs Genesis xxii. 13, and האחזות, pual
participle, ‘the fishes are _caught_, the birds are _held_’); =like
them= _are_ =ensnared= (יוקשים, see Deuteronomy vii. 25) =the sons
of the Adam to a time= (which is) =evil, as when it falls upon them
suddenly.= (It would result from this reasoning that wisdom is of no
use at all; but in order to meet this objection, Koheleth cites an
instance where it was of great value.)

13 ¶ This wisdom have I seen │ Nevertheless, I have observed
also under the sun, and it │ the following instance of
_seemed_ great unto me: │ wisdom in this work-day world,
│ and which appeared to me of
│ great moment.

(13.) =Moreover, this I have seen= (_i.e._ an instance of) =a wisdom
under the sun= (_i.e._ in this world, where wisdom avails so little),
=and great= (but the noun is an abstract, ‘of great value’ or
importance, ‘a really great thing’) =is it with regard to me= (LXX.,
πρὸς, _i.e._ he considered that, notwithstanding the observation above,
he ought to take it as of considerable account; here was an unexpected
deliverance, by means of wisdom, from one of those snares, מצודים,
spoken of above).

14 _There was_ a little │ There was a little city, and
city, and few men within it; │ the men therein were a few; and
and there came a great king │ there came a great king against
against it, and besieged it, │ it, and invested it, and built
and built great bulwarks │ a net-work [of fortifications]
against it: │ around it.

(14.) =A city small, and the men= (אנשים, ‘weak men’) =in it= (emphatic,
‘in that same’) =a few, and there came against it a king= (who was)
=great, and he surrounded it, and built over against it networks very
great ones;=

15 Now there was found in it │ Now there was found therein
a poor wise man, and he by his │ a poor wise working man, and
wisdom delivered the city; yet │ _he_ it was who saved the city
no man remembered that same │ by his wisdom; yet men did
poor man. │ not remember that same person
│ because he was a poor working
│ man.

(15.) =and was found in it= (again emphatic) =a man= (איש, the rest
are אנשים) =poor= (chapter iv. 13, and here only, מסכן, LXX. πένητα. The
meaning of πένης is that kind of poverty which seeks its food by labour,
and differs from πτωχὸς, which signifies a mendicant. Fuerst gives the
derivation, ס־כן, of the root, which would imply such a meaning as the
LXX. have), =wise= (there is no copula between these two qualifying
words. It is not a poor _and_ wise man, but a man economically
wise――who could make his wisdom go a long way), =and saved= (even)
=he= (the turn of meaning is, that the safety of the city was found
in himself, as the embodiment of wisdom) =the city= (with את emphatic,
which the LXX. notice by the rendering, δ ι α σώσῃ αὐτὸς τ ὴ ν πόλιν)
=in his wisdom; and a man= (not exactly ‘humanity,’ which we have seen
would require the article, but ‘man’ as representing the individuals
generally) =did not remember= (the verb follows the nominative), =with
respect to that man= (את, with the article, which the LXX. notice by
σὺν, with a _genitive_! but in reality the genitive is governed by the
verb, σὺν being adverbial), =the poor one, even that same=. (The shade
of meaning given by the article is, that mankind, as a rule, do not
adequately remember, and so neither reward, wisdom when associated
with poverty. ‘The poor inventor and his sorrows,’ have passed into a
proverb.)

16 Then said I, Wisdom │ Yet _I_ should say myself that
_is_ better than strength: │ wisdom was a real good, and
nevertheless the poor man’s │ better than strength, yet the
wisdom _is_ despised, and his │ wisdom of the poor working man
words are not heard. │ is despised, and his words just
│ those which are not listened to.

(16.) =Then said I= (in opposition to ‘man,’ above), =good= is =wisdom
above might; and the wisdom of the poor= (with the article) =is
despised, and his words= (or reasonings, used still in the technical
sense common to this book) are those =which are not listened to.=

17 The words of wise _men │ These words of the wise in
are_ heard in quiet more than │ a silence are heard:
the cry of him that ruleth │
among fools. │ More than the shriek of a
│ ruler with fools.

(17.) =Those words= (repeated) of =wise men in rest are heard= (but
notice בנחת is an ambiguous word,――see Job xxxvi. 16; the root נחת is to
press down, and hence the equivoke. These words of the wise man in ‘a
going down’ are those which are heard, _i.e._ in a ‘time of pressure,’
or in distress; ‘in quiet,’ is also a meaning, and a very good one,
being that which expresses, without doubt, the main intent in the
passage) =above the cry= (Genesis xviii. 20. Fuerst considers that צעק
is an older form and זעק modern, yet both are used in Genesis xviii.
20, 21, but the references will be seen to support the idea that זעקה
is the ‘cry of emotion,’ while צעקה is any ‘loud cry;’ if so, there is
a special reason why it should be used in this place. Again, מזעקה might
be a participle meaning a ‘cry of distress,’ thus giving force to the
equivoke), =of a ruler with the befooled.=

18 Wisdom _is_ better than │ A real good is wisdom above
weapons of war: but one sinner │ weapons of fight: but a single
destroyeth much good. │ erring sinner destroys this
│ good very much.

(18.) =A good= (repeated, so that it corroborates what is found in
verse 16) is =wisdom above weapons= of =an encounter, and sinning once=
(in the sense of making a wicked mistake, or ‘one wicked mistaker,’
either person or thing) =destroys good the much.=

CHAPTER X.

DEAD ¹flies cause the │ ONE of a swarm of blow-flies
ointment of the apothecary to │ tainting corrupts the
send forth a stinking savour: │ confectioner’s conserve, and
_so doth_ a little folly him │ esteemed above reason and above
that is in reputation for │ reputation too is of false
wisdom _and_ honour. │ prudence――just a little.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ Flies of death. │

X. (1.) =Flies of death= (זבוב, occurs Isaiah vii. 18 only, as an emblem
of the Egyptian plague) =cause to stink= (singular, _i.e._ a single
blow-fly out of many will do this, see Proverbs xiii. 5 for the only
other instance of future hiphil), and =cause to belch out= (Psalms
lix. 7, Proverbs xv. 2, _i.e._ with putrefaction) =the oil= (see
chapter vii. 1) =of the apothecary. Precious more than wisdom more than
honour= (_i.e._ and _more_ than honour also), =follies= (but observe
‎‏סכלות, elaborate follies or false prudence, chapter ii. 3), =a little=
(distributive singular, one out of many such. The LXX. render τίμιον
ὀλίγον σοφίας ὑπὲρ δόξαν ἀφροσύνης μεγάλην, ‘and a little wisdom
is more precious than great glory of folly.’ The objection to this
rendering of the LXX. is that they displace, quite contrary to their
usual custom, ‘_a little_,’ which comes at the end of the sentence, a
difficulty which D. F. X. palliate by reading μεγάλης――‘than the glory
of _great_ folly.’ The Syriac reads, ‘so a little folly is more weighty
than wisdom and great glory.’ Symmachus reads, κἂν μικρά, ‘even if
a little.’ On the whole, however, and remembering the meaning of
‎‏סכלות, which is a perverse or false wisdom, the text as it stands makes
very good sense: ‘A single blow-fly will corrupt and make ferment
the [carefully prepared] oil of the apothecary; so more precious
than wisdom or honour, even is a little one out of the many perverse
follies,’ _i.e._ this perverse kind of wisdom will destroy a reputation
for intellect and probity, and that also even when the gain proposed
is but a small matter, and will cause the subject of it to sacrifice
prudence and reputation for the sake of some whim which he knows is not
worth having).

2 A wise man’s heart _is_ at │ The heart of the wise man is at
his right hand; but a fool’s │ his right hand, but the heart
heart at his left. │ of a foolish one is at his left
│ hand.

(2.) =The heart of a wise man is at his right, but the heart of a
foolish one is at his left= (the heart is really at the left side,
but this is the natural heart. Heart is however to be understood
not as meaning the understanding, but moral sentiments, which is its
metaphorical signification in this book).

3 Yea also, when he that is │ And also in the way, like the
a fool walketh by the way, his │ wise fool he is, out of heart
¹wisdom faileth _him_, and he │ he walks, and says to all, What
saith to every one _that_ he │ elaborate folly _this_ is!
_is_ a fool. │
│
¹ _Hebrew_ his heart. │

(3.) =And moreover in the way= (which word ‘way’ is so constantly used
in an ethical sense――Psalms cxix. 1――that we cannot overlook it here)
=like that which is the wise fool’s= (the Masorets notice the article
here, and pronounce it superfluous, but it is not so; for the meaning
is, that it is like the perversely wise fool’s way generically, in this)
that as _he walks, his heart_ (the third time ‘heart’ has occurred in
this passage, raising the word into great emphasis and importance),
=fails= (the Authorized Version considers this to mean a failure in
wisdom, but it is rather a failure of confidence, which is the ethical
meaning of the term ‘heart’) =and says= (the nearest nominative is לב,
heart, and so the LXX. understood, for they render ἃ λογιεῖται, κ.τ.λ.
‘that which he thinks of’ _is_ folly; this makes good sense) =to all,
perverse folly it is= (emphatic, hence the meaning is, ‘he is out of
heart altogether,’ or ‘his heart misgives him;’ and it says, ‘what
perverse folly it all really is.’ Conscience convicts those clever
wicked plans, and they who devise them know that they are only
elaborate mistakes).

4 If the spirit of the ruler │ If the spirit of the ruling
rise up against thee, leave │ one should go forth against
not thy place; for yielding │ thee, thy station do not quit,
pacifieth great offences. │ because a remedy may cure
│ wicked errors which are great.

(4.) =If a spirit= of =the ruling one= (not, as usually rendered, the
ruler, which does not exactly convey the idea) =goes up against thee=
(the LXX. show that they so understood it by rendering πνεῦμα τοῦ
ἐξουσιάζοντος) =thy place do not yield= (the sense of the passage is,
‘If there be too strong a spirit against you, if you are sailing, as
it were, in the teeth of the wind, do not yield when you have good
grounds for remaining:’ this makes excellent sense, is cognate to the
accompanying passages, and follows the LXX.) =for a healing= (מרפא,
occurs Proverbs xiv. 30 and xv. 4 only, the LXX. read ἴαμα, ‘a remedy’)
=pacifies mistakes= (with the usual idea of culpability attaching to
this word) =great ones= (the idea is ‘do not yield to mere adverse
_circumstances_ when even culpable _mistakes_ admit of a remedy.’)

5 There is an evil _which_ I │ There exists an evil which I
have seen under the sun, as an │ have observed in this work-day
error _which_ proceedeth ¹from │ world, like an error which goes
the ruler: │ forth from before the face of
│ the Powerful,
¹ _Hebrew_ from before. │

(5.) =There exists an evil= (notice abstract with its shade of meaning,
which) =I have seen under the sun, like that which is erroneous= (שגגה,
see chapter v. 5 (6), ‘an inadvertence’), =which goes out= (the verb
has the contract-relative joined with it; the exact idea is that it is
like an inadvertence, such as might go out on the part of the ruler’s
command, the great Ruler being in the mind of the writer, but the
proposition is general) =from the face of the caused to have power=
(a ‘providential mistake,’ then).

6 Folly is set ¹in great │ viz., the setting of false
dignity, and the rich sit in │ wisdom in high places, and the
low place. │ rich sit in low estate.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ in great heights. │

(6.) =Set= (that is, the ruler does this, but, as usual, this is not
expressed when the proposition is intended to have a general bearing)
=the perverse fool= (generic――‘perverse folly’ then will be a good
rendering) =in high places many a one, and the rich= (but the hiphil
form is worthy of remark, ‘persons that make rich’) =in a low place=
(‎‏שֵפֶל occurs so punctuated at Psalms cxxxvi. 23 only, rendered ‘low
estate’) =sit.=

7 I have seen servants upon │ I have seen serfs on horseback,
horses, and princes walking as │ and princes walking like serfs
servants upon the earth. │ afoot.

(7.) =I have observed servants= (slaves, that is, who ought to serve)
=upon horseback, and princes walking as servants= (‘ought to do’ is no
doubt involved in this expression――‘servants’ repeated being emphatic)
=upon the earth= (_i.e._ afoot).

8 He that diggeth a pit │ One digs a pit, into _that_ he
shall fall into it; and whoso │ falls: or breaks a hedge, gets
breaketh an hedge, a serpent │ bitten by a serpent.
shall bite him. │

(8.) =Dig= (not necessarily either a participle or an imperative)
=a pitfall= (גומץ occurs here only, and is said to be a late word; it
occurs in Arabic and Syriac. That a ‘pitfall’ is meant is evident
from the context), =in it= (emphatic) =he falls= (a sinister intent in
digging this pit is not necessarily implied, but the context shows that
such is primarily aimed at: this is the more evident when we recollect
that חָפַר is to ‘dig,’ and ♦חָפֵר ‘to bring to confusion’); =and break a
wall= (_i.e._ an enclosure, see Job xix. 8 for the precise meaning of
the root, hence also Numbers xxii. 24), =bites him a serpent= (as we
say, ‘gets bitten by a serpent,’ which would naturally lurk in loose
stone walls).

♦ “חָפֵד” replaced with “חָפֵר”

9 Whoso removeth stones │ Moves stones, and finds them
shall be hurt therewith; _and_ │ in his way: chops wood, must
he that cleaveth wood shall be │ be careful with it.
endangered thereby. │

(9.) =Cause to move= (♦hiphil participle of נסע, ‘bring up’――see
Exodus xv. 22) =stones, be troubled= (see Genesis xlv. 5) =with them=
(emphatic); =cleaving= (poel participle, occurs Psalms cxli. 7; Isaiah
lxiii. 12 only) =wood= (plural ‘logs of wood’) =be endangered= (this
is called a future niphal by the Masorets, who so point, but the real
meaning of סכן is evidently to ‘take care,’ so that the reading of the
LXX. by ♠κινδυνεύσει, ‘he shall be endangered,’ is _ad sensum_――it is
literally ‘he shall take care,’) =with them= (emphatic, all these are
instances of either unexpected or unintentional results).

♦ “hiphal” replaced with “hiphil” for consistency

♠ “κινδευνεύσει” replaced with “κινδυνεύσει”

10 If the iron be blunt, and │ If the axe be blunt, then
he do not whet the edge, then │ its edge had best be set: and
must he put to more strength: │ then if one of the strong hits
but wisdom _is_ profitable to │ prevail, the skilful hit was
direct. │ it.

(10.) =If blunt= (קהה――occurs Jeremiah xxxi. 29, 30, and Ezekiel
xviii. 2――in the sense of ‘teeth set on edge:’ there the Masorets
point as Kal, here as piel) =the iron, and he= (emphatic, but there
is no nominative expressed to which this can refer) =not the faces=
(usually considered to refer to the edges of the axe-head) =sharpen=
(occurs Ezekiel xxi. 21 (26), as pilpel of קלל, which has the meaning
of ‘lightness,’ ‘swiftness;’ the word occurs as an adjective, Numbers
xxi. 5, in the sense of ‘light,’――our soul loatheth this _light_ food)
=and strong ones will prevail= (singular, If ‘strong ones’ be the
nominative, this is an instance of a distributive plural――one or more
of these will; the future piel has the meaning ‘_strengthen_,’ the
Kal ‘_to prevail_,’ but we can only consider this as a Masoretic
conjecture) =and profit causing success= (but the LXX. render by
περισσεία, ‘advantage’――see below; but כשר occurs only Esther viii. 5,
and chapter xi. 6; see however כשרון, which occurs chapter ii. 21, iv. 4,
v. 10 (11), which we have seen occasion to render ‘success;’ hence
the meaning, ‘the made successful is’) =wisdom= (not generic, _i.e._
a single instance of it). The general scope is quite clear; it is
the superiority of wisdom to brute force, and so all commentators and
versions understand it; but the exact rendering is very difficult;――all
the versions are perplexed and discordant, and the copies of the LXX.
have an important textual variation. We will give these at length,
beginning with the LXX. as the most ancient. This reads――Ἐὰν ἐκπέσῃ
τὸ σιδήριον καὶ αὐτὸς πρόσωπον ἐτάραξεν καὶ δυνάμεις δυναμώσει καὶ
περισσεία τοῦ ἀνδρείου (which B. reads τῷ ἀνδρὶ οὐ, and E. X. τοῦ
ἀνδρὸς) σοφία――‘If the axe-head should fall off, then the man troubles
his countenance, and he must put forth more strength; and wisdom is the
advantage of an energetic man.’ The Syriac version, (‡ Syriac phrase)
――‘If the axe be blunt, and it troubles the face and increases the
slain; and the advantage of the diligent is wisdom.’ The Vulgate
reads――‘Si retusam fuerit ferrum _et hoc non ut prius_ sed hebetatum
fuerit, multo labore ♦exacuetur et post industriam ♠sequetur
sapientia’――‘If the iron should be blunt, and this _not as before_,
but should have lost its edge, it is sharpened with much labour; and
after industry will follow wisdom.’ Jerome renders the former part in
conformity with the Vulgate; but after ‘_non ut prius_,’ which he also
has, runs on with――‘sed conturbatum fuerit, virtutibus corroborabitur,
et reliquum fortitudinis sapientia est ...’――‘but is troubled; it shall
be strengthened by virtues, and the remainder of strength is wisdom.’
It will be seen then that we have reason to suspect a corruption of the
text; and we think that the suspicious ‘non ut prius’ of the Vulgate
and Jerome shows what this corruption was. We notice also that neither
the LXX. nor the Syriac take any notice of the negative. Guided by
the clue thus given, we will venture on the following conjectural
emendation of the text. We imagine that it was originally written thus,
‎‏והוא להפנים קלקל, the ה being written full――like ♣שתקיף in chapter vi. 10,
compare also chapter viii. 1, Nehemiah ix. 19――and having the meaning,
‘to _the_ faces’ or ‘edges.’ Such an insertion of ה being unusual,
would cause suspicion to rest on the passage, and the transition to
‎‏לא פנים would be easy. This, however, was but one out of many possible
conjectures, and the Vulgate has preserved another, namely, that
the reading was לפני, ‘as before,’ and, as was common with the ancient
versions, inserts both the reading and its variant into the text. This
conjectural change in the text will make all quite clear; the passage
will then read thus――‘If the iron be blunt, and so it is as to its
edges whetted, and so too blows prevail, and so too an advantage is
the success [due to an instance] of wisdom,’ _i.e._ in this case a
skilful hit. That is, if the axe be blunt, grinding, force, and skill
together, will produce the required result. No doubt this can only be
put forth as mere conjecture, but, in the absence of any satisfactory
interpretation, may be admitted; for, in fact, arbitrary senses given
to words, and the insertions of explanatory glosses not immediately
deducible from the original, do amount to alterations of the text. None
of the other ancient Greek versions have been preserved in this place,
except a reading of Symmachus, which is very curious, showing still
more forcibly how early the difficulty must have arisen, since it is at
best a reading _ad sensum_ only, προέχει δὲ ὁ γοργευσάμενος εἰς σοφίαν,
‘and the nimble advances into wisdom.’

♦ “exacueter” replaced with “exacuetur”

♠ “sequeter” replaced with “sequetur”

♣ “שהתקיף” replaced with “שתקיף”

11 Surely the serpent will │ If bites the snake before the
bite without enchantment; and │ charm is sung, then what is the
¹a babbler is no better. │ profit of the skilful tongue?
│
¹ _Hebrew_ the master of │
the tongue. │

(11.) =If bites the serpent= (with the article, and therefore
generic――serpents generally) =without= (בלוא; we may well suppose that
the full form is used not without meaning; it occurs Isaiah lv. 1, 2,
in the sense of ‘the absence of,’ which well suits the context here,)
=whispering= (occurs Isaiah ii. 3, 20, and xxvi. 6; Jeremiah viii. 17,
etc.), =and= there is =nothing= of =profit to the master of the tongue=
(with article, hence generic. The rendering of the Authorized Version
is derived from the Vulgate. The alliteration shows that the aphorism
is equivocal, it is the converse of the former: skill will help force,
but after the mischief is done skill is of no use. There is also here
an ironical depreciation of serpent-charming).

12 The words of a wise man’s │ Each word of a wise man’s
mouth _are_ ¹gracious; but the │ mouth is grace, but the lips of
lips of a fool will swallow up │ a fool will swallow him apace.
himself. │
│
¹ _Hebrew_ grace. │

(12.) =The words of= (in the usual sense of reasonings) =the mouth of
a wise man, a favour= (_i.e._ are each one so), =but the lips of= the
=foolish swallow him= (future piel, occurs 2 Samuel xx. 19, 20; Job
viii. 18, in the sense of ‘destroy;’ hence the LXX. render καταποντιοῦσιν;
compare Matthew xiv. 30, xviii. 6. Here too we have a singular verb
with a plural noun――‘any one of a fool’s words may be his destruction.’
Notice also the implied difference――‘a fool talks with his _lips_, a
wise man _reasons_’).

13 The beginning of the │ The beginnings of _his_
words of his mouth _is_ │ reasonings are each a wise
foolishness: and the end of │ error, and the result of what
his ¹talk _is_ mischievous │ he says are disappointed
madness. │ expectations, every one of
│ which is mischievous.
¹ _Hebrew_ his mouth. │

(13.) =The beginning= of =words= (or reasonings) =of his mouth,
elaborate follies= (סכלות in its usual sense; and the whole being
without the article gives the meaning――‘Each beginning of the
reasonings of his mouth is one out of a number of elaborate follies;
his reasonings are themselves elaborate mistakes’), =and an end= (אחרית
is used to signify the last end, Numbers xxiii. 10; see chapter vii. 8)
=of his mouth= (repeated, ‘that same mouth’) =disappointed expectations=
(‎‏הוללות, in its usual sense in this book) =mischievous= (singular, each
one of which is so).

14 A fool also ¹is full of │ And the wise fool multiplies
words: a man cannot tell what │ his reasons, though no man
shall be; and what shall be │ understands the present, and
after him, who can tell him? │ the future results no one can
│ declare.
¹ _Hebrew_ multiplieth words.│

(14.) =And the elaborate fool multiplies words, not knowing= (_i.e._
when there is _no_ knowing by) =the man= (humanity generally) =what
it is which will be= (but the Alexandrine and Vatican read apparently
‎‏שהיה, γενόμενον, which A². E. X. alter to γενησόμενον, ‘which shall be.’
The Syriac supports the LXX., but Symmachus reads τὰ προγενόμενα ἀλλ’
οὐδὲ τὰ ἐσόμενα――‘the things which were before, but not those which
come after’――which the Vulgate follows. Jerome, however, follows the
LXX. against the Vulgate; nevertheless we should not be inclined to
alter the text, but would rather regard the reading of the LXX. as _ad
sensum_――the object being to give the difference between the contracted
and full relative and the subjunctive meaning attaching to this form.
Thus שיהיה is that which _is_ or exists, the τὸ ὄν――‘he does not know
then the real state of things’――is the meaning; for with this agrees
what follows), =and which= (full relative) =is= (or will be) =from
after him= (but there is no reason why מאחריו should not be considered
as a participial noun, as the LXX. make it, and then we must render the
‘future’ in the sense of what occurs in the future) =who tells to him=
(emphatic). The meaning of the passage is――‘That the elaborate fool
multiplies reasonings, which are sure to have an evil tendency, as they
are intended to promote his elaborate folly, although man generally
neither understands the meaning of the present, nor can divine the
future.’ The difficulty of the sentence arises from the play between
‎‏מה־שיהיה and מאחריו.

15 The labour of the foolish │ A toil of fools will
wearieth every one of them, │ weary them each one, who has
because he knoweth not how to │ altogether lost his way.
go to the city. │

(15.) =The toil= (_i.e._ ‘anxious care,’ which is the meaning of this
word) =of the foolish ones wearies him= (another distributive plural;
the result of these various fools’ labour is weariness to each of
them. It is also to be noticed that the verb is feminine, and yet עמל
is usually masculine. Several nouns are, Stuart observes, masculine
or feminine _ad libitum scriptoris_. There is however, we suspect,
a perceptible difference in the meaning in these cases. The stricter
agreement denotes closer union between the verb and its nominative;
and if this be so, the idea of the passage may be rendered by ‘the toil
of the fools is self-weariness’), =which= (full relative, equivalent
therefore to ‘because’ he does) =not know= (or is instructed) =to= (in
order to) =go towards= (אל, LXX. εἰς) =a city= (not _the_ city, as is
usually rendered.) The obvious meaning would surely be, that the fool
had lost his way, and hence as he is going wrong he has simply his
trouble for his pains.

16 ¶ Woe to thee, O land, │ Ah! woe to thee, O country,
when thy king _is_ a child, │ whose king is a child, and thy
and thy princes eat in the │ princes eat in the morning.
morning! │

(16.) =Woe to thee, land, whose king= is =a lad, and thy princes in
the morning eat= (_i.e._ ‘feast,’ the morning being the proper time for
work, and not for feasting. Compare Isaiah v. 11).

17 ¶ Blessed =art= thou, │ Blessed art thou, O country,
O land, when thy king _is_ │ whose king is the son of
the son of nobles, and thy │ nobles, and thy princes eat in
princes eat in due season, │ due season, for strength and
for strength, and not for │ not for drunkenness.
drunkenness! │

(17.) =Blessings on thee, land, whose king= is =a son of nobles=
(ἐλευθέρου, LXX.), =and thy princes in season eat, and not in
drunkenness= (but the LXX. render καὶ οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσονται――‘and shall
not be ashamed’――reading the בשתי as though the ב were radical, and
deriving the word from בוש, ‘to be ashamed.’ Thus is probably preserved
an intentional equivoke.)

18 ¶ By much slothfulness │ When they are idle, there
the building decayeth; and │ is a slender support, and
through idleness of the hands │ when both hands hang down,
the house droppeth through. │ the roof-tree will weep.

(18.) =By idlenesses= (Proverbs xix. 15 only; but עצל, ‘the sluggard,’
occurs continually in Proverbs, and once as a verb, Judges xviii. 9.
The word is pointed as a dual, but the meaning ‘idlenesses’ suits the
context) =decayeth= (מכך, occurs Kal, Psalms cvi. 43, niphal here, and
hiphil Job xxiv. 24, _all_) =the beam= (הַמְּקָרֶה here only, but the word
differs only in pointing from הַמִקְרֶה――the hap, and the equivoke could
hardly be unintentional), =and in lowness of hands drops= (occurs Job
xvi. 20, Psalms cxix. 28; but notice the readings of the LXX., which
are peculiar) =the house.=

19 ¶ A feast is made for │ For pleasure they make bread,
laughter, and wine ¹maketh │ and wine rejoices life, but
merry: but money answereth all │ silver subserves with respect
_things_. │ to everything.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ maketh glad the │
life. │

(19.) =To laughter= are =makings= (which the LXX. renders by ποιοῦσιν,
‘they make’) =bread and wine rejoices= (the Masorets consider this a
piel and transitive) =lives, and the silver= (with the article, and
therefore generic――money) =answereth with respect to all things=
(both senses of יענה are given in the versions of the LXX. ἐπακούσεται,
Alexandrine, ‘humbly obeys,’ and ταπεινώσει, Vatican, ‘will humble.’
The Alexandrine also reads σὺν τὰ πάντα. The Syriac reads also double,
as do some copies of the LXX.――(‡ Syriac phrase)――‘and money oppresses
and leads them astray in all.’ The Alexandrine reading, however, makes
quite consistent sense, and squares entirely with the rest of the
passage. Bread is prepared for pleasure rather than support, wine
rejoices hearts already merry――its real use is to cheer those who are
faint with toil or sorrow; and silver, which one can neither eat nor
drink, is preferred to bread and wine and everything else).

20 ¶ Curse not the king, │ Also, even in thy conscience
no not in thy ¹thought; and │ a king do not revile, and in
curse not the rich in thy │ secret places of the bed-chamber
bed-chamber: for a bird of the │ neither do thou revile the rich:
air shall carry the voice, and │ for a bird of the heavens will
that which hath wings shall │ carry out the rumour, and the
tell the matter. │ swift one on wings shall tell
│ the matter.
¹ _Or_, conscience. │

(20.) =Also in thy understanding= (occurs Daniel i. 4, 17; 2 Chronicles
i. 10, 11, 12 only, and always with this meaning: all the ancient
versions follow the idea contained in the LXX.’s συνείδησις, which
would seem to give the notion that this curse was a reasonable, not a
hasty one) =a king= (not the king, any king) =do not curse; and in the
innermost= of =thy bed-chambers do not= either =curse the rich= person
(the idea of cursing or reviling is of course here prominent), =for a
bird of the heavens shall cause to convey the voice= (with את and the
article, with ‘respect to that voice’ is the meaning――the rumour will
get abroad in a mysterious way) =and a lord of the winged ones= (the
Masorets wish to omit the article in ה֯כנפים) =shall tell the matter=
(the LXX. note the emphasis given by ה and the articles by adding the
pronoun σοῦ, which is simply a rendering _ad sensum_――’Treason, like
murder, will out’).

CHAPTER XI.

CAST thy bread ¹upon the │ CAST thy bread on the face
waters: for thou shalt find it │ of the waters: for in the
after many days. │ multitude of the days――thou
│ wilt find it.
¹ _Hebrew_ upon the face of │
the waters. │

XI. (1.) =Cast thy bread upon the face of the waters, for in the
multitude of the days thou shalt find it.= (This passage is usually
taken as an exhortation to liberality. Hengstenberg however understands
it to refer to ships and their cargo of grain. ♦Zöckler refers to
Proverbs xi. 24 for a similar sentiment, and Luke xvi. 9; the idea is
clearly that of an unexpected return).

♦ “Zökler” replaced with “Zöckler” for consistency

2 Give a portion to seven, │ Give a share all round, and
and also to eight; for thou │ to some one else beside, for
knowest not what evil shall be │ thou dost not know what sort of
upon the earth. │ mischief shall be in the earth.

(2.) =Give a portion to seven, and also to eight= (see Job v. 19, Micah
v. 4 (5), for similar idioms; it is equivalent to our ‘everybody, and
some one else’), =for not dost thou know what shall be mischief upon
the earth.=

3 If the clouds be full of │ IF the clouds are FULL of
rain, they empty _themselves_ │ rain, they empty themselves
upon the earth: and if the │ upon the earth; and if falls
tree fall toward the south, or │ the tree by the south [wind] or
toward the north, in the place │ by the north――the place where
where the tree falleth, there │ the tree _falls_ is just where
it shall be. │ it will be.

(3.) =If they are full the clouds= (עב is the thick vapour that appears
and disappears) =rain= (גשם is the storm rain which does mischief or
good according to circumstances, see chapter xii. 2) =they cause to
empty= (clouds do not always prognosticate rain; and even if they
should, a storm may do mischief rather than good); =and if is falling
a tree in the south=, or =if= either =in the north= (‘_if_’ is hence
emphatic) =the place where= may =fall= (contracted relative) =the tree=
(now with the article, for it is the falling tree spoken of above)
=there it will be= (the unusual form יהוא has troubled the commentators
much: Moses Stuart pronounces the א to be otiose, which is not
explaining the form at all. But may not the following be a sufficient
explanation?――הוא in this book is used in the sense of the existence of
an object: might not Koheleth coin a verb by adding the י of the
present tense, with the idea, ‘makes itself be’?――compare also Joshua
x. 24, Isaiah xxiii. 12, where this otiose א occurs; the rendering of
the LXX. by ἔσται shows how they understood it, and so also the Syriac
and Vulgate. The whole sentence is ironical, when the tree has really
fallen, then we know which way it fell. The Masoretic accentuation of
this passage is peculiar――we should naturally have expected them to
have divided the verse into two clauses, at יריקו, ‘they empty,’ instead
of which the greatest pause occurs at ‘north’ בַּצָּפ֑וֹן, but this method of
reading renders the irony of the passage; the verse will then stand
thus:――‘If the clouds are full of rain they will empty themselves
upon the earth, and so if the tree should incline to the south, or if
it should incline to the north――the place where it falls is where it
really will _be_.’ The accentuation is rhetorical rather than logical,
and the Masorets have shown great taste in their pointing).

4 He that observeth the wind │ Looking at the wind one does
shall not sow; and he that │ not sow, and gazing into the
regardeth the clouds shall not │ clouds one does not reap.
reap. │

(4.) =Regarding wind! not does= one =sow= (impersonal), =and looking
into clouds neither is one reaping= (we must attend to the precise form
of the words in this sentence in order to gather the true nature of the
sarcasm hidden in it; the LXX. have clearly marked these forms in their
rendering).

5 As thou knowest not what │ Just as thou art not one who
_is_ the way of the spirit, │ knows the way of the spirit,
_nor_ how the bones _do grow_ │ how the bones are in the womb
in the womb of her that is │ of the pregnant: just so thou
with child: even so thou │ knowest nothing with respect
knowest not the works of God │ to the working of the Almighty,
who maketh all. │ who is working out the whole.

(5.) =As thou art not one who knows what is the way of the spirit,
like the bones in the womb of the pregnant, just so, thou dost not
know, with respect to the working of the Deity, Who is He that= (full
relative) =performs with regard to the whole.= (The LXX. render the
first part ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν γινώσκων, ‘among whom none knows,’ taking
no notice of the pronoun _thou_. Did they read the כ at the end of אינך
as beginning the following word? That the sentence is equivocal, and
that this equivoke helps the general drift of the passage is not to be
doubted.) The subject now returns to the previous train of argument,
which directs man to do his duty in submission to the inscrutable ways
of Providence.

6 In the morning sow thy │ In the morning sow the seed
seed, and in the evening │ thou oughtest, and to the
withhold not thine hand: │ evening do not withhold thy
for thou knowest not whether │ hand, for THOU canst not tell
¹shall prosper, either this │ if it shall succeed, whether
or that, or whether they both │ this or another, or if all of
_shall be_ alike good. │ it shall be alike good.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ shall be right. │

(6.) =In the morning sow thy seed= (with את, ‘sow that seed which you
ought to sow,’) =and to the evening= (note the change of preposition,
it renders this passage a better introduction to what is to follow:
there is a reference to the evening of life) =do not withhold thy
hand= (compare chapter vii. 18, where את is used with this verb, and
observe the difference in meaning), =for it is not thou who knowest=
(a repetition of this clause from the preceding verse) =whether= (but
compare 1 Kings xxii. 24, and 1 Samuel ix. 18, showing that the meaning
with זה is ‘what way’ or ‘how,’) =succeeds= (see chapter x. 10 and
references) =the this or this, or if both of them as one= (ἐπὶ τὸ
αὐτό ‘to the same,’ LXX.) =good= (plural; sowing is no doubt taken
generically as a type of human labour, performed in expectation of a
future harvest, and the Preacher directs us to do our appointed work in
patience, and from morning till evening, _i.e._ the whole day through,
sure of a good result. The morning or the evening sowing will, one or
other, perhaps both, succeed; the transition to what follows is quite
natural).

7 ¶ Truly the light _is_ │ Yes, sweet is the light, and
sweet, and a pleasant _thing │ a good to the eyes the sight of
it is_ for the eyes to behold │ the sun;
the sun: │

(7.) =And sweet= (but the participial form ‘sweetened’ is not to be
altogether overlooked; thus, ‘is sweetened’) =the light, and a good to
the eyes to behold= (_i.e._ to have sight of) =the sun=, (for life _is_
a blessing, and this is a reply to the equivocal ‘I said in my heart’
of chapter iii. 18 and iv. 3).

8 But if a man live many │ yet if man lives to the very
years, _and_ rejoice in them │ longest limit of his days, in
all; yet let him remember the │ all of them he may rejoice, and
days of darkness; for they │ remember with respect to the
shall be many. All that cometh │ days of darkness that they
_is_ vanity. │ shall be many too: all that is
│ coming is evanescent.

(8.) =For if the years are many= (that is, if his years are as long as
they can be) =the man= (humanity generally) =in all of them rejoices=
(but as the noun stands before the verb, it is emphatic, and in this
case, as the verb is preceded by בכלם, is potential――‘may rejoice’),
=and remembers with regard to days of darkness= (that is, forgetfulness,
the days when he is forgotten, and also of sorrow or sadness, for both
meanings are combined) =for the many= (repeating the above, with the
sense, then, ‘for very many also,’) =will they be, all which may come=
(‘every coming event’ that is, as the contracted relative shows) =is
vanity= (evanescent).

9 ¶ Rejoice, O young man, in │ Rejoice, O choice young man,
thy youth; and let thy heart │ in the days of thy youth, and
cheer thee in the days of thy │ let thy heart do thee good in
youth, and walk in the ways of │ the choice days of thy youth,
thine heart, and in the sight │ and walk in ways of thy heart
of thine eyes: but know thou, │ and sights of thine eyes, and
that for all these _things_ │ know how, on account of all
God will bring thee into │ these things thou shalt be
judgment. │ summoned of the Almighty to
│ judgment.

(9.) =Rejoice, young man= (but בחר has the sense of ‘_choice_,’ and
this is to be remembered here) =in thy youth= (but ילדות occurs here
only; see however Psalms cx. 3, which the Masorets point יַלְדֻתֶךָ; this
word is the abstract of the word ילד, which means ‘to beget;’ hence the
exact meaning of ילדות would be ‘productions’), =and cause good to thee=
let =thy heart in days of thy choosings= (for בחורות also occurs only
here and chapter xii. 1, and youth therefore is so designated, because
it is a time of choice), =and walk in ways of thy heart, and seeings
of thine eyes; and know how, upon all these, thou art caused to come=
of =the Deity into judgment.= (The LXX. have here the gloss ἄμωμος――‘in
the ways of thine heart _blameless_;’ but the Syriac Hexaplar notes
this gloss with an asterisk, so that it is clearly not entitled to any
weight; it was no doubt a subsequent addition to the text, because the
meaning was not seen, as indeed it cannot be, without a reference to
the double meanings of the Hebrew words.)

10 Therefore remove ¹sorrow │ Put away disappointment from
from thy heart, and put away │ thine heart, and purge away
evil from thy flesh: for │ mischief from thy flesh, for
childhood and youth _are_ │ childhood and early
vanity. │ expectations are evanescent.
│
¹ _Or_, anger. │

(10.) =And put away disappointment= (כעס, chapter i. 18, references)
=from thy heart, and pass away evil from thy flesh; because the
producings and the dawnings= (שחרות occurs here only; for the meaning
of the root see Job vii. 21, Psalms lxxviii. 34, Proverbs xiii. 24. So
the meaning of the word here is ‘early seekings,’ which the LXX. render
_ad sensum_ by ἡ ἄνοια, ‘the ignorance;’ and the Syriac by (‡ Syriac
phrase) ‘because childhood and not to know’) =is vanity= (singular;
‘each one is so,’ as a plural precedes). That the passage is ironical
we cannot doubt, but it is good advice, even the very best, as it
stands. Youth is the time of choice, the time of productions, or, if
one will――and the expression will preserve an equivoke similar to that
in the text――_conception_; but this time is evanescent. We choose our
path in life when young, but then we cannot go back. He who changes his
calling once rarely succeeds in it, and never if he chooses twice.

CHAPTER XII.

REMEMBER now thy Creator in │ But remember thy Creator in
the days of thy youth, while │ the days of thy choice youth,
the evil days come not, nor │ while these evil days come not,
the years draw nigh, when thou │ and these years approach, of
shalt say, I have no pleasure │ which thou shalt say there is
in them; │ nothing for me in THEM of happy
│ providence;

XII. (1.) =And remember with respect to thy Creators= (but בורא is
‘creating’――see Isaiah xl. 28, xli. 5, xlv. 7, 18, where the participle
poel occurs; hence, according to the strict meaning, it ought to be
_thy creatings_) =in days of thy choosings= (with the same meaning as
before; the sentence is doubtless intentionally equivocal) =until not
come days of the evil= (‘the evil days’ is quite correct, but then
we must remember the emphasis falls on ‘evil,’ not ‘days’), =and are
caused to draw near years= (not ‘the years,’ which spoils the pathos of
the passage――years are opposed to days above) =which thou sayest there
is nothing to me= (emphatic) =in them of delight= (but not without a
shade of the technical meaning, ‘providence’――as man grows older he
_expects_ no delight; no great good fortune can come to him).

2 While the sun, or the │ before, too, is darkened the
light, or the moon, or the │ sun, and the light, and the
stars, be not darkened, nor │ moon, and the stars; and the
the clouds return after the │ storm-cloud returns after the
rain: │ tempest.

(2.) =Until not darkened= (_i.e._ before this happens) is =the sun,=
and =the light= (referring back to chapter xi. 7), =and the moon, and
the stars, and return the clouds= (_storm_-clouds) =after the rain=
(the tempestuous rain, _i.e._ storm succeeds storm).

3 In the day when the │ In a day when sore moved are
keepers of the house shall │ the keepers of the house,
tremble, and the strong men │ and the mighty mortals sadly
shall bow themselves, and the │ perplex themselves, and the
grinders ¹cease because they │ grinding maids are idle because
are few, and those that look │ there is little to grind, and
out of the windows be darkened,│ the ladies look into gloom
│ through the windows;
¹ _Or_, fail because they │
_grind_ little. │

(3.) =In a day= (not _the_ day, which again spoils the pathos. Koheleth
is now going to give specimens of evil days) =when disturbed are,=
(occurs only Esther iii. 9, and Habakkuk ii. 7, pilpel. This word, שיזעו,
has been said to be a late one, but זעוה occurs Deuteronomy xxviii. ♦25;
the idea is ‘commotion,’ when they are or may be in commotion) =the
keepers of the house, and perplex themselves= (see chapter i. 15,
vii. 13), =the men= (אנושי, ‘weak men’) of =the strength= (it is quite
consistent with the character of the writer to join such terms as these
together, with an oblique sarcasm hidden beneath them), =and cease=
(here only, a so-called late word) =the grinding maids, because they
are diminished, and are dark the gazers= (feminine) =in the windows=
((1.) the keepers are the slaves; (2.) the strong men the masters;
(3.) the grinding maids the women servants; (4) the gazers are the
ladies――compare Judges v. 28; thus is comprised the whole family.)

♦ “5” replaced with “25”

4 And the doors shall be │ and closed are the doors in the
shut in the streets, when the │ street in the failing sound of
sound of the grinding is low, │ the mill, and one starts at the
and he shall rise up at the │ note of a sparrow, and hushed
voice of the bird, and all the │ are all the daughters of song.
daughters of musick shall be │
brought low; │

(4.) =And shut are the doors in the street, in the failing voice of
the grinding,= (or ‘grinding maid’), =and rises up= (as there is no
nominative we must take it as impersonal, ‘one rises up’) =to a voice
of the sparrow, and brought low= (see Isaiah ii. 9, and also xxix. 4,
where the word is used of a muttering voice) =all daughters of the
song.=

5 Also _when_ they shall │ Moreover, the height is
be afraid of _that which is_ │ dreaded, and great fears are
high, and fears _shall be_ │ in the way, and the almond
in the way, and the almond │ tree [the harbinger of spring]
tree shall flourish, and the │ is despised, and the little
grasshopper shall be a burden, │ grasshopper [of summer] is as
and desire shall fail: because │ a burden, and desire itself has
man goeth to his long home, │ fled, for man has departed to
and the mourners go about the │ his long home, and mourners go
streets: │ round the market:

(5.) =Moreover= (this marks a transition in the catalogue of ills,
the former were external evils――these come from within) =also from the
height they fear; and terrors in the way; and the almond is despised;
and burdens itself the grasshopper; and scattered the desire.= (This
passage has exercised translators and commentators from the earliest
times. The LXX. read――καίγε ἀπὸ ὕψους ὄψονται, καὶ θάμβοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ,
καὶ ἀνθήσει τὸ ἀμύγδαλον, καὶ ♦παχυνθῇ ἡ ἀκρίς, καὶ διασκεδασθῇ ἡ
καππάρις――‘and they shall look from the height, and fears shall be
in the way, and the almond-tree shall blossom, and the locust shall
increase, and the caper berry shall be scattered.’ Here B. read εἰς τὸ
ὕψος, ‘into the height.’ Aquila, τρόμῳ τρομήσουσιν, ‘they shall tremble
a trembling;’ and καὶ καρπεύσει ἡ καππάρις, ‘the caper-berry shall
fructify.’ Now Symmachus, quoted by Jerome, read――‘Super hæc etiam
de eccelso videbunt, et error erit in via, et obdormiet vigilans, et
dissolvetur spiritus fortitudo.’ The last words are, however, preserved
in Greek――καὶ διαλυθῇ ἡ ἐπίπονος. ‘On these they look from the height,
and error will be in the way, and the watchful will fall asleep, and
the courage of the spirit will be dissolved.’ The Syriac reads――(‡
Syriac phrase)――‘and also from the height they fear, and shall be
terrified in the way, and the watch shall rush upon him, and the almond
flourish, and the grasshopper be increased, and the caper shall burst,
and desire shall cease.’ We think that, with these different versions
before us, all of which have preserved portions of the original,
we shall be able to conjecture the meaning of the text. It is just
possible that originally the text read מגביה, and which might have been
altered by displacing the י, and putting it on to the beginning of the
next word; for otherwise it is hard to suppose that the LXX. would go
out of their way to alter a reading the meaning of which, as it stands,
is so obvious. B. seems to have preserved this original reading. The
difference to the sense, however, is not great, as this looking upwards
is evidently the effect of fear, as is shown by the next clause. This
begins with the word וחתחתים――a reduplicated and therefore emphasized
form of חתת, to ‘be dismayed,’ or ‘distracted,’ as in the sense of
‘broken in pieces;’ hence the rendering of Aquila: ‘These intense
tremblings in the way’――which word ‘way’ surely we may interpret in the
ethical sense so common in this book of ‘way of life’――are the natural
result of ‘looking with fearfulness into the height.’ Compare chapter
iii. 21.

♦ “πανχυνθῆ” replaced with “παχυνθῇ”

The next clause is still more obscure. The word ינאץ has, in all other
places, the meaning ‘to be despised,’ or, in piel, to ‘provoke.’ The
hiphil occurs here only, and is rendered, contrary to all analogy,
‘flourish.’ This is virtually to alter the text; and though the LXX.
support this rendering, it is clear, from its various readings, that
the Greek text has also been tampered with. The original meaning
has apparently been preserved by Symmachus, and by the alternative
rendering of the Syriac. Then as to ‘the almond tree,’ השקד: the word
occurs Genesis xliii. 11, Numbers xvii. 8 (23), Jeremiah i. 11, _all_.
This last passage gives probably the clue. The almond is the first
tree to blossom in the coming spring, and is its harbinger; it is,
as it were, in a hurry to welcome it; but this harbinger of spring
is despised. As to the interpretation that the almond blossom is an
allegorical description of the white hairs of an old man, it may be
answered that the almond blossom is pink, not white.

The next clause――‘The grasshopper shall be a burden’――may be explained
by noticing that the word חגב occurs Numbers xiii. 33, Isaiah xl. 22,
as the type of something small or insignificant. The only other two
places, viz. Leviticus xi. 22, 2 Chronicles vii. 13, where the word
occurs, show that this creature was edible, but might become a plague.
‎‏יסתבל, the hithpael of סבל, occurs here only; ‘burdens itself’ is the
exact meaning. The English Version no doubt gives here the true sense.

The next clause――‘Desire shall fail’――may be explained in the same
way. The word תפר, the hiphil of פרר, has always the meaning to ‘break,’
‘disannul’――see Numbers xxx. 13, Job xv. 4, and hophal, Zechariah
xi. 11. Evidently Symmachus, with the reading διαλυθῇ ἡ ἐπίπονος, has
preserved the true meaning; for by ἐπίπονος he has rendered the word
‎‏אביונה, which occurs here only. Now we have no right to seek a strange
signification for this word when fair sense can be made according to
the ordinary derivations. אביון occurs frequently in the sense of ‘a poor
person’――the root being אבה, ‘to wish,’ or ‘desire.’ Jerome translates,
as we see――‘Et dissolvetur spiritus fortitudinis’――‘the spirit or
breath of the brave is dissolved,’ which is _ad sensum_; so that
we may take אביונה as simply an abstract of אביון, with the meaning of
‘wishfulness,’ or ‘longing.’ Thus the reading of the LXX. is explained:
Capers are provocatives of desire or appetite, and hence their Hebrew
name. The ἐπίπονος of Symmachus occurs only once again, at Isaiah
liii. 3, where it represents the Hebrew מכאבות, ‘griefs’ (see Field’s
most instructive note, Hexaplar _in loc._). Thus we venture to offer
the following as a probable explanation of this passage:――‘Besides,
they look with dread on high, and great dismay is in the way, and
the almond tree (as a symbol of anticipation) is despised, and the
grasshopper (as a symbol of what is small and light) is burdensome,
and the caper-berries (as the symbol of desires or longings) are
scattered.’ In the last clause the metaphorical out-tops the literal
meaning, as the Authorized Version renders, rightly abandoning the LXX.
at this point.) =For= (or ‘so’) =advances= (הלך, recalling chapter i.)
=the man= (in the ordinary technical meaning of humanity) =to=
(‘towards,’ LXX. εἰς, in its primary sense of motion to a place) =a
house of his age= (עלמו, having its ordinary sense of ‘the age,’ or
αἰὼν, as the LXX. render. The Authorized Version’s ‘long home’ is a
beautiful paraphrase: his ‘brief home’ is his _house_; his ‘long home’
his _tomb_), =and go round in the street= (which the LXX. render ἐν
ἀγορᾷ, ‘in the market’) =the mourners= (those who mourn for the dead).

6 Or ever the silver cord │ or ever the silver line runs
be loosed, or the golden bowl │ out, or the golden oil bowl is
be broken, or the pitcher be │ removed, or the pitcher is
broken at the fountain, or the │ shattered at the fountain, or
wheel broken at the cistern. │ wheel runs down at the well, or
│ the dust returns to the earth
7 Then shall the dust return │ where it was, or the spirit is
to the earth as it was: and │ returning to the Almighty, its
the spirit shall return unto │ giver;
God who gave it. │

(6. 7.) =Until not= (marking another break in the comparison) =is
loosed= (according to the Kri, but this is only a conjecture of the
Masorets; if correct, the niphal occurs here only, but the chetib, ירחק,
means ‘to be far from;’ and thus the LXX. render by ἀνατραπῇ, ‘turned
back,’ and this appears to be correct) =a cord of the silver= (the
Hebrew idiom for our ‘the _silver_ cord.’ If we understand this to mean
the silver cord from which the lamp is suspended, we shall perceive
the allusion), =and is broken= (תרץ, so far as the unpointed text is
concerned, might be feminine third future Kal of רוץ, ‘to run’――see
Genesis xxix. 12. The LXX. render by συνθλιβῇ, which occurs Sira
xxxi. 14 only; but it also may be from רצץ――see Judges ix. 53. B. reads
συντριβῇ; but this is an error, the origin of which is the similarity
of the two words and the occurrence of them both in the same sentence),
=a bowl= (גלת, used by Zechariah to denote the reservoir which
contained the oil for the golden candlestick of the temple, Zechariah
iv. 2, 3. The LXX. render ἀνθέμιον, which also occurs Exodus xxxviii.
16, ‘for the round ornaments;’ compare also Joshua xv. 19, Judges i. 15,
where the word evidently signifies a reservoir for irrigation; גלה also
occurs 1 Kings vii. 41, etc. If the ‘golden bowl of the lamp’ be taken
as the most probable meaning, it will admirably suit the context),
=of the gold= (the idea then is apparently that of a golden lamp
bowl suspended by a silver cord; the lamp would be let down daily at
least; the golden bowl would then run down and be taken away to be
replenished); =and is shivered= (see Leviticus vi. 28 (21)) =a pitcher
upon= (or over) =the spring= (occurs Isaiah xxxv. 7, xlix. 10, and is
evidently a spring gushing out of the ground, as opposed to בור, which
is a sunken well or cistern), =and= is =run= (but the word is niphal,
and the LXX. render συντροχάσῃ, ‘run down to’) =the wheel= (with the
article, because the special wheel is meant which stands over the
cistern) =towards= (אל, the preposition is different) =the well; and
returns the dust upon the earth as it was, and the spirit is returning=
(both futures, but one written full, the other contracted; there is
perhaps a slight distinction――one also follows, the other goes before,
its verb) =to= (אל; LXX. πρὸς) =the Deity who= (but full relative, as
compared with the contracted form above) =gave it= (feminine, to agree
with רוח; but, as we have so often seen, this close agreement gives a
peculiar meaning; it is especially the divine _gift_).

8 ¶ Vanity of vanities, │ so――evanescence of evanescence,
saith the Preacher; all _is_ │ says the Preacher, the whole is
vanity. │ evanescent.

(8.) =Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher= (with the article, the
Preacher as such, generic), =the whole is vanity=.

We must notice, in interpreting these last verses that the acts
described are all such as take time, indeed but a short time, to
accomplish, and occur frequently. The string of the lamp will be loosed
almost daily, and the lamp taken away; and surely no more poetical
or impressive metaphor of death can be discovered than a lamp with
oil-bowl gone. Next we have the shattered pitcher――an accident which
may happen at any time; and then the bucket running down into the
well, which is a comparatively frequent occurrence, and may well bring
vividly before our minds the disappearance of one who was just before
familiarly among us. That the bucket might be drawn up again full of
living water is necessarily not mentioned, but is one of those hidden
sarcastic promises in which the book delights. The last two clauses are
joined together by the simple ‘and;’ but there is clearly at this point
a transition from simile to metaphor, which the Authorized Version
notices. If indeed one likes to take it so, the simile is true enough
of dust and wind, but the last clause discloses a deeper meaning. After
all, the promises of a resurrection are but scarcely hidden behind the
apparent hopelessness of the conclusion arrived at.

The interpretation which makes the whole of this passage a metaphorical
description of old age, comes from no more authoritative source than
Hagadic interpretation, as embodied in the Chaldee Targum. There is
no proof that any allegory was intended, and the literal meaning is
not only to the purpose, but exceedingly touching and beautiful. The
arrangement of clauses, also, is highly artificial, which may be seen
by counting them as marked off by the recurring forms ‘or ever,’
‘also,’ and the like.

│ SECTION V.――_Epilogue._
│
9 And ¹moreover, because the │ But there is something yet to
Preacher was wise, he still │ come: for the Preacher _was_
taught the people knowledge; │ wise; he yet taught knowledge
yea, he gave good heed, and │ with respect to men generally;
sought out, _and_ set in order │ and, pondering, he tracked out
many proverbs. │ the solution of [these] enigmas
│ to the utmost.
¹ _Or_, the more wise the │
Preacher was. │

(9.) =And for the rest= (for now is to be added something over and
above, to form a supplement to what went before; compare 1 Kings
xiv. 19 both for the Hebrew and Greek. As the word וְיֹתֵ֕ר stands first, it
is the subject: whether we point it as noun or participle will not make
much difference to the sense, but the Masoretic pointing is best; they
also, with great taste, put a large distinctive accent on the word.
The meaning is, ‘there is something yet to be added;’) =that he was=
(the contract-relative with subject verb) even a =Koheleth= (_i.e._
a preacher or gatherer) who was =wise, yet= (the LXX. render καὶ ὅτι,
‘nevertheless,’ but their rendering is very remarkable and we will
discuss it at length presently) =taught knowledge= (and in the sense so
common in this book, of the knowledge how to act under a given set of
circumstances) =with respect to the people= (not as usually understood
that he taught the people knowledge, but taught knowledge with regard
to the people, the _collected_ body of humanity; compare chapter
iv. 16) =and he gave heed, and he sought out= (Deuteronomy xiii. 4;
Psalms cxxxix. 1) =an order= (chapter i. 15, viii. 18; this is the
third time of occurrence of this root, which is peculiar to this book.
The Masorets point as piel pret., it might however be a noun, as the
LXX. render it, and we shall see reason presently for adopting this
interpretation) =of parables the many.=

10 The Preacher sought to │ The Preacher, indeed, sought
find out ¹acceptable words: │ to discover the reasons for a
and _that which was_ written │ providence, but what he _has_
_was_ upright, _even_ words of │ written is the real matter of
truth. │ truth.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ words of delight. │

(10.) =Sought Koheleth to find words of providence= (דבר and חפץ, both
in their usual technical senses) =and written= (full participial form)
=uprightness, words of truth.= (The passage is very obscure; the LXX.
render καὶ περισσὸν ὅτι ἐγένετο ὁ ἐκκλησιαστὴς σοφὸς [καὶ] ὅτι ἐδίδαξεν
γνῶσιν σὺν τὸν ἄνθροπον καὶ οὖς ἐξιχνιάσεται κόσμιον παραβολῶν. Πολλὰ,
κ.τ.λ. ‘and for the rest, because the Preacher was wise, and because
he taught knowledge with respect to the man, and his ear will trace
out the orderly arrangement of parables.’ Now, some curious features in
this rendering deserve notice――the word κόσμιον occurs 1 Timothy ii. 9,
and iii. 2; it is used as a neuter, ‘orderliness.’ Again, את העם is
rendered σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. B. omits and A² includes in brackets the
καὶ, so marked, in the text; A² reads ἔτι; F.X. omit σὺν; F. reads [for
ἄνθρωπον] λαὸν; E. ἐξιχνίασε; and D. κόσμον. Thus it appears probable
that the LXX. read יחקר and as this future follows the past, we have the
sense of the imperfect: they also translated σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, because
they considered העם as used generically――see chapter iv. 16, and in the
same sense. If, however, the Hebrew text were altered, which would be
done simply by lengthening the jud י into van ו, the rendering of the
LXX. would become unintelligible, and hence the variations, especially
that of E. Then אזן, which is really nominative to יחקר, and emphatic as
standing before it, came to be regarded as a verb and pointed piel, the
only instance of such pointing that occurs, and then accenting וְחִקֵּ֔ר with
zakeph, the Masorets made these two words a parenthesis, and pointed
‎‏תִּקֵּן as a piel pret., instead of a noun as do the LXX.; they then make
‎‏הרבה singular agree with the plural משלים, which would, according to the
usage of this book, be distributive. On the whole, however, it seems
very probable that the LXX. have preserved the right reading, or at
least the meaning of the passage; this meaning is, ‘and for the rest,
because Koheleth _was_ a wise man, still he taught knowledge with
respect to the people, and his ear [_i.e._ judgment, for the word
contains the idea of weighing as in a balance] was seeking out an
orderly meaning [or solution] of parables;’ by parables he means
doubtless the mysterious facts cited. The next verse takes this
thought up thus: ‘Very much sought Koheleth in order to find words of
providence――and written correctly words of truth.’ If the reading were
really וכתוב, and not, as we may conjecture, יכתוב, we should then read
‘he was writing,’ which it must be confessed makes excellent sense.
The LXX. render here [καὶ] γεγραμμένον εὐθύτητος λόγους ἀληθείας, in
the accusative, governed by ἐζήτησεν, and the meaning is therefore,
‘sought ... a thing written of right [even] words of truth.’ This
agrees altogether with the context, and also is cognate with what
follows).

11 The words of the wise │ These reasons of the wise are
_are_ as goads, and as nails │ like goads, but they are like
fastened _by_ the masters of │ stakes as well, deeply fixed,
assemblies, _which_ are given │ dominating over the herd,
from one shepherd. │ appointed so by a shepherd,
│ who is the only one.

(11.) =The words of= (but as דברי is repeated, we have ‘those words of’)
=wise men as goads= (דברי חכמים כדרבנות; the play is manifest between דבר and
‎‏דרב, but דרבנות occurs here only, note also its two accents, and the noun
in a concrete form at 1 Samuel xiii. 21) =and as nails= (the particle
of comparison being repeated, gives the idea ‘but as nails as well,’
but מַשְֹמְרֹות, spelt with the letter sin, occurs here only; only one
instance of a piel participle of the very common verb שמר occurs,
viz. Jonah ii. 8 (9), but the noun משמר is also quite common; see
1 Chronicles ix. 23, where למִשׁמָרוֹת occurs in the sense of ‘by wards’)
=planted masters of assemblies= (אספה, occurs as a feminine noun
Isaiah xxiv. 22; LXX. συναγωγὴν. This word has a curious history, which
will further illustrate its meaning at this place. The reading of the
Hexapla at Isaiah xxiv. 22 is: Οʹ. καὶ συνάξουσι ※ συναγωγὴν αὐτῆς ※
εἰς δεσμωτήριον καὶ ἀποκλείσουσιν εἰς ὀχύρωμα. Σ. καὶ ἀθροισθήσονται
ἀθροισμὸν δεσμίου καὶ συγκλεισθήσονται εἰς συγκλεισμόν, showing a
difficulty about the word which in the Hexapla is included between
♦asterisks. Here the Peshito renders Koheleth by (‡ Syriac word)
‘masters of thresholds,’ and uses this same word at Exodus xii. 22, 23,
and Deuteronomy vi. 9; hence they understood the allusion to be to the
stake set across the entrance of the fold to prevent the cattle from
straying out. That this reading will explain Isaiah xxiv. 22 is evident
enough, and that it will explain this passage also will be seen if we
look upon these goads as both compelling the oxen to labour, and, as
the Syriac renders, forming the stakes which close the entrance to the
lair); =are given from a shepherd, one only= (notice that אחד stands
emphatically at the end of the sentence, and must mean, therefore,
‘the shepherd, who is the only one.’ This verse has greatly perplexed
commentators: a diligent perusal of the ancient versions, and following
the hint given by the Syriac above, will show us what is the real
meaning. The LXX. read πεπυρωμένοι A¹. D. E. X., which A², B alter
to πεφυτευμένοι, and which Aquila follows; probably πεπυρωμένοι was
a misreading of πεπαρμένοι, from πάρω, ‘to infix;’ Symmachus reads
πεπηγότες ‘constructed on,’ see Hebrews viii. 2. All the ancient
Greek versions consider בעלי as a preposition, and render by παρὰ τῶν;
the LXX. render אספות by συναγμάτων; B. συνθεμάτων; Aquila συνταγμάτων;
Syriac Hexapla (‡ Syriac phrase); Symmachus συναχθέντων, otherwise
συναντημάτων; Syriac (‡ Syriac phrase), all which words have nearly
the same meaning. The Syriac also gives here, from Theodotion, what is
possibly a rendering of this place, but may be intended for παρεωραμένῳ,
in verse 14, (‡ Syriac phrase), _i.e._ ἀόρατοι, ‘unseen things.’ The
Peshito rendering, perhaps, may give us the clue――these ‘collections’
or ‘collectanea’ are the instances of human life adduced by Koheleth,
and it is men [like a herd of oxen driven by goads, and confined by
stakes] over which these wise words are masters; and this we think will
make all clear. The meaning of the passage will be: ‘These words of
wise men are like goads, by which the ox is incited to labour, but
then they are like stakes [_i.e._ to which the ox may be tied, or, of
which a fence might be made to confine him] as well, planted around the
persons brought together, [or the herd, and so infixed as masters of
the assembly]; they are given from the shepherd [or herdsman’――for
the word has both senses] ――‘who is the only one;’ or, since מֵרֶֹעֶה is
ambiguous, and pointed מִרְעֶה means ‘pasture,’ they give pasture only.
Thus the metaphor is kept up and the equivoke maintained).

♦ referencing the “※” symbol

12 And further, by these, │ But as to anything else from
my son, be admonished: of │ these, my son, be warned:
making many books _there is_ │ making of many treatises would
no end; and much ¹study _is_ │ lead to no result, and much
a weariness of the flesh. │ study would but weary the body.
│
¹ _Or_, reading. │

(12.) =But for the rest= (repeating the formula of verse 9, and hence
a further extension of the same idea), =from them= (emphatic, ‘but for
anything else that these wise words can do’ is the meaning) =my son,
be admonished: makings= of =books= (ספרים used for the sake of the
alliteration with אספות above) =the many= (_i.e._ too many) =is nothing
of an end= (_i.e._ gives no result) =and study= (להג occurs here only,
LXX. μελέτη) =the much= (too much) =wearies= (compare chapter i. 8)
=the flesh=. (Thus even wisdom itself is no cure for the ills of
humanity. The catalogue of human ills and the instances of human
evanescence would form too large a volume for humanity to master, so
that in this case also the world itself would not contain the books
which should be written. The grand result of all however is easily
obtained, and follows.)

13 ¶ ¹Let us hear the │ The end of the matter, even
conclusion of the whole │ all that hath been heard,
matter: Fear God, and keep his │ is this: WITH REGARD TO THE
commandments: for this _is_ │ ALMIGHTY, FEAR HIM; AND WITH
the whole _duty_ of man. │ REGARD ALSO TO HIS COMMANDMENTS,
│ KEEP THEM, FOR THIS IS
¹ _Or_, The end of the │ EVERYTHING TO HUMANITY.
matter, _even_ all that │
hath been heard, _is_. │

(13.) =The conclusion= (compare chapter iii. 11, vii. 2) of the =word=
(_i.e._ the final reason), =the whole= (with article in its usual
sense), =is heard= (niphal), =with respect to the Deity, fear; and
with respect to his commandments, keep= (notice the emphatic את,
which, however, the LXX. do not render by σὺν, because the article
and position give the emphasis required) =for this= is =all the man=
(_i.e._ the whole duty, happiness, etc., of humanity).

14 For God shall bring every │ For with respect to every
work into judgment, with every │ act, the Almighty will bring
secret thing, whether _it be_ │ to adjustment all that is
good, or whether _it be_ evil. │ mysterious, whether it be a
│ good or an evil.

(14.) =For with respect to all working= (or doings, notice the prefixed
‎‏מ) =the Deity= (noun before the verb) =is bringing into judgment
upon all the hidden= (niphal participle, but עלם has not lost its
meaning, it is the hidden past and future, hence the LXX. παρεωραμένῳ,
‘overlooked,’ compare 1 Kings x. 3), =if it be good or if evil= (if it
be a good act or an evil one either. That is, God will bring all these
mysteries into orderly adjustment, and in the sequel vindicate his
holiness and justice).

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρόποις
ε ὐ δ ο κ ί α――LUKE ii. 14.

♦ERRATA.

♦ All Errata and Addenda items have been corrected in the text.

Page 7, NOTES, column 2 line 14, _for_ ‘hiphil’ _read_ ‘niphal.’

Page 19, TEXT, line 10, _for_ ‘he’ _read_ ‘He.’

Page 31, NOTES, column 2, line 6, _for_ ‘ratio’ _read_ ‘oratio.’

ADDENDA.

Page 9, NOTES. _At end of Note on verse 17, after_ ‘spirit,’ _add_: It
may be observed that רעיון occurs in the Chaldee of Daniel――see Daniel ii.
29, 30; iv. 19 (16); v. 6, etc., always in the sense of a ‘_painful_
reflection,’ but in later Chaldee and Syriac as ‘a reflection’ of any
kind. As the sense in which Koheleth uses the word is the nearest to
the root-meaning, is it not an evidence, so far, of earlier composition
of his book?

Page 12, NOTES. _At end of Note on verse 5 add_: It should have been
mentioned that פרדס is also considered to afford an indication of
late composition. It is said to be a Persian word; it occurs, however,
Nehemiah ii. 8; Canticles iv. 10. The word admits of Semitic derivation,
from פרד, ‘to divide,’ ‘cut off in portions,’ ‘lay out.’ If it be
really an exotic, no date of introduction is more probable than that
of Solomon. It is also to be noted that in the context it _follows_ the
word ‘gardens,’ which is quite natural if it were intended to denote a
foreign luxury recently introduced.

Page 15, NOTES. _At end of Note on verse 12 add_: This most obscure
passage may perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of
the word כבר and other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or
abstract occurs Genesis xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7, and 2 Kings v. 19, joined
with ארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb
occurs in hiphil, Job xxxv. 16, xxxvi. 31, translated ‘multiplied,’
‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristic _jud̄_
inserted――Job viii. 2, xv. 10, etc.; Isaiah x. 13, xvii. 12, etc.――in
the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent
comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of
‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to
time, the LXX. render ἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also
the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon, _s. voc_. The meaning
then of the word is, the ‘_complete_ present.’ With regard to the
use of the root מלך in the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew,
viz. Nehemiah v. 7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Daniel iv. 27 (24).
This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair
inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is ‘to
counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one sent.’
These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns round
to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false hopes
and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can tell
the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘_who_ is the
man,’ etc., equivalent to――‘in what way can humanity enter upon the
results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’――the equivoke being, we believe,
intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to
the sentence――‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’
It would have been better if the word =with= had been printed in the
notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period,
though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back
through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered
into English thus――‘In respect of which he at present takes that
counsel.’ The LXX., contrary to their custom, omit ἤδη, because it
is perhaps sufficiently included in ἐπελεύσεται, or because τὰ ὅσα ἤδη
ἐποίησαν αὐτήν would not have been intelligible. It is evident this all
squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with
all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between
this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate
only to be disappointed in his successor.

Page 19, NOTES. _At end of Note on verse 25 add_: The phrase ומי יחוש חוץ
‎‏ממני requires further elucidation. The reading ממנו, supported by the
LXX., is also confirmed by Hebrew MSS. The literal rendering is――‘and
who hastens outside him.’ This the LXX. translate καὶ τίς πιέται πάρεξ
αὐτοῦ, ‘who drinks,’ etc. There is a reading of A², φείσεται, ‘spares.’
The former is supported by Peshito, Arabic, and Theodotion――the latter
by Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. If the Greek text alone had to be
considered, φείσεται would, as the harder reading, be entitled to
the preference. It is readily seen, however, that it arose from a
conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text into חוס, for which there is
no authority; neither will the meaning to ‘spare’ make any sense in the
context. As the root occurs frequently, we are driven to the conclusion
that the rendering of the LXX. was by design. Schleusner’s conjecture
that πίεται is used in the signification of ‘sensibus frui,’ is no
doubt correct――compare Habakkuk i. 8, as also Isaiah xxviii. 16.
Considered as _ad sensum_, this rendering gives the idea of the Hebrew
text correctly.

PRINTED BY T. AND A. CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY,
AT THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Catalogue.

A SELECTION FROM THE
BOOKS
PUBLISHED DURING 1869, 1870, 1871, AND 1872, BY

MESSRS. RIVINGTON,

HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE;
WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON.

=THE BOOK OF CHURCH LAW.= Being an exposition of the Legal Rights
and Duties of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England.
By the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A., F.S.A. Revised by WALTER
G. F. PHILLIMORE, B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law, and Chancellor of
the Diocese of Lincoln. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_We have tested this work on various points of a crucial character,
and have found it very accurate and full in its information. It
embodies the results of the most recent acts of the Legislature on
the clerical profession and the rights of the laity._”――STANDARD.

“_Already in our leading columns we have directed attention to Messrs.
Blunt and Phillimore’s ‘Book of Church Law,’ as an excellent manual
for ordinary use. It is a book which should stand on every clergyman’s
shelves ready for use when any legal matter arises about which its
possessor is in doubt.... It is to be hoped that the authorities at
our Theological Colleges sufficiently recognize the value of a little
legal knowledge on the part of the clergy to recommend this book to
their students. It would serve admirably as the text-book for a set
of lectures, and we trust we shall hear that its publication has done
something to encourage the younger clergy to make themselves masters of
at least the general outlines of Ecclesiastical Law, as it relates to
the Church of England._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_There is a copious index, and the whole volume forms a Handy-book
of Church Law down to the present time, which, if found on the
library shelves of most of the clergy, would often save them from
much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and expense._”――NATIONAL CHURCH.

=THOUGHTS ON PERSONAL RELIGION=; being a Treatise on the
Christian Life in its Two Chief Elements, Devotion and
Practice. By EDWARD MEYRICK GOULBURN, D.D., Dean of Norwich.
New Edition. Small 8vo. 6s. 6d.

An Edition for Presentation, Two Volumes, small 8vo.
10s. 6d. Also, a cheap Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=THE PURSUIT OF HOLINESS=: a Sequel to “Thoughts on Personal
Religion,” intended to carry the Reader somewhat farther
onward in the Spiritual Life. By EDWARD MEYRICK GOULBURN, D.D.,
Dean of Norwich, and formerly one of Her Majesty’s Chaplains
in Ordinary. Fourth Edition. Small 8vo. 5s.

=THE STAR OF CHILDHOOD.= A First Book of Prayers and Instruction
for Children. Compiled by a Priest. Edited by the Rev. T. T.
CARTER, M.A., Rector of Clewer, Berks. With Six Illustrations,
reduced from Engravings by FRA ANGELICO. Royal 16mo. 2s. 6d.

“_All the Instructions, all of the Hymns, and most of the Prayers here
are excellent. And when we use the cautionary expression ‘most of the,’
&c., we do not mean to imply that all the prayers are not excellent in
themselves, but only to express a doubt whether in some cases they may
not be a little too elaborate for children. Of course it by no means
follows that when you use a book you are to use equally every portion
of it: what does not suit one may suit a score of others, and this book
is clearly compiled on the |comprehensive| principle. But to give a
veracious verdict on the book it is needful to mention this. We need
hardly say that it is well worth buying, and of a very high order of
merit._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Messrs. Rivington have sent us a manual of prayers for children,
called ‘The Star of Childhood,’ edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, a
very full collection, including instruction as well as devotion, and
a judicious selection of hymns._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_The Rev. T. T. Carter, of Clewer, has put forth a much needed and
excellent book of devotions for little children, called ‘The Star
of Childhood.’ We think it fair to tell our readers, that in it they
will find that for children who have lost a near relative a short
commemorative prayer is provided; but we most earnestly hope that even
by those who are not willing to accept this usage, the book will not be
rejected, for it is a most valuable one._”――MONTHLY PACKET.

“_One amongst the books before us deserves especial notice, entitled
‘The Star of Childhood,’ and edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter: it is
eminently adapted for a New Year’s Gift. It is a manual of prayer for
children, with hymns, litanies, and instructions. Some of the hymns are
illustrative of our Lord’s life; and to these are added reduced copies
from engravings of Fra Angelico._”――PENNY POST.

“_Supposing a child to be capable of using a devotional manual, the
book before us is, in its general structure, as good an attempt to meet
the want as could have been put forth. In the first place it succeeds,
where so many like efforts fail, in the matter of simplicity. The
language is quite within the compass of a young child; that is to say,
it is such as a young child can be made to understand; for we do not
suppose that the book is intended to be put directly into his hands,
but through the hands of an instructor._”――CHURCH BELLS.

“_To the same hand which gave us the ‘Treasury of Devotion’ we are
indebted for this beautiful little manual for children. Beginning
with prayers suited to the comprehension of the youngest, it contains
devotions, litanies, hymns, and instructions, carefully proportioned
to the gradually increasing powers of a child’s mind from the earliest
years, until confirmation. This little book cannot fail to influence
for good the impressible hearts of children, and we hope that ere
long it will be in the hands of all those who are blessed with
Catholic-minded parents. It is beautifully got up, and is rendered
more attractive by the capital engravings of Fra Angelico’s pictures
of scenes of our Lord’s childhood. God-parents could scarcely find a
more appropriate gift for their God-children than this, or one that is
more likely to lead them to a knowledge of the truth._”――CHURCH UNION
GAZETTE.

“_‘The Star of Childhood’ is a first book of Prayers and instruction
for children, compiled by a Priest, and edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter,
rector of Clever. It is a very careful compilation, and the name of its
editor is a warrant for its devotional tone._”――GUARDIAN.

“_A handsomely got up and attractive volume, with several good
illustrations from Fra Angelico’s most famous paintings._”――UNION
REVIEW.

_BY THE SAME COMPILER AND EDITOR._

=THE TREASURY OF DEVOTION=: A Manual pf Prayers for General and
Daily Use. Sixth Edition. Imperial 32mo, 2s. 6d.; limp cloth,
2s. Bound with the Book of Common Prayer, 3s. 6d.

=THE WAY OF LIFE=: A Book of Prayers and Instruction for the
Young (at School). Imperial 32mo, 1s. 6d.

=THE GUIDE TO HEAVEN=: A Book of Prayers for every Want. For the
Working Classes. New Edition. Imperial 32mo, 1s. 6d.; limp
cloth, 1s.

_The Edition in large type may still be had._
Crown 8vo, 1s. 6d.; limp cloth, 1s.

=THE PATH OF HOLINESS=: A First Book of Prayers, with the Service
of the Holy Communion, for the Young. With Illustrations.
Crown 16mo, 1s. 6d.; limp cloth, 1s.

=LECTURES ON THE REUNION OF THE CHURCHES.= By JOHN J. IGN. VON
DÖLLINGER, D.D., D.C.L., Professor of Ecclesiastical History
in the University of Munich, Provost of the Chapel-Royal,
&c. &c. Authorized Translation, with Preface by HENRY NUTCOMBE
OXENHAM, M.A., late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. Crown
8vo. 5s.

“_... Marked by all the author’s well-known, varied learning, breadth
of view, and outspoken spirit. The momentous question which the Doctor
discusses has long occupied the thoughts of some of the most earnest
and enlightened divines in all branches of the Christian communion,
though wide apart in other points of belief and practice. On the
infinite importance of reunion among Christian Churches in their
endeavour to evangelize the yet remaining two-thirds of the human
race――strangers to any form of Christianity――the author enlarges with
power and eloquence; and this topic is one of unusual and lasting
interest, though, of course, only one among ♦a host of others equally
important and equally well discussed._”――STANDARD.

♦ duplicated word removed “a”

“_In the present state of thought respecting the union of the Churches,
these Lectures will be welcomed by very many persons of different
schools of religious thought. They are not the hasty words of an
enthusiast, but the calm, well-considered, and carefully prepared
writings of one whose soul is profoundly moved by his great subject.
They form a contribution to the literature of this grave question,
valuable alike for its breadth of historical survey, its fairness, the
due regard paid to existing obstacles, and the practical character of
its suggestions._”――LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.

=BRIGHSTONE SERMONS.= By GEORGE MOBERLY, D.C.L., Bishop of
Salisbury. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

=THE SAYINGS OF THE GREAT FORTY DAYS=, Between the Resurrection
and Ascension, regarded as the Outlines of the Kingdom of God.
In Five Discourses. With an Examination of Dr. Newman’s Theory
of Development. By GEORGE MOBERLY, D.C.L., Bishop of Salisbury.
Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

=WARNINGS OF THE HOLY WEEK, &c.= Being a Course of Parochial
Lectures for the Week before Easter and the Easter
Festivals. By the Rev. W. ADAMS, M.A., late Vicar of St.
Peter’s-in-the-East, Oxford, and Fellow of Merton College.
Seventh Edition. Small 8vo. 4s. 6d.

=SELF-RENUNCIATION.= From the French. With Introduction by the
Rev. T. T. CARTER, M.A., Rector of Clewer. Crown 8vo. 6s.

“_It is excessively difficult to review or criticise, in detail, a
book of this kind, and yet its abounding merits, its practicalness,
its searching good sense and thoroughness, and its frequent
beauty, too, make us wish to do something more than announce its
publication.... The style is eminently clear, free from redundance
and prolixity._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Few save Religious and those brought into immediate contact with
them are, in all probability, acquainted with the French treatise of
Guilloré, a portion of which is now, for the first time we believe,
done into English.... Hence the suitableness of such a book as this
for those who, in the midst of their families, are endeavouring to
advance in the spiritual life. Hundreds of devout souls living in the
world have been encouraged and helped by such books as Dr. Neale’s
‘Sermons preached in a Religious House.’ For such the present work
will be found appropriate, while for Religious themselves it will be
invaluable._”――CHURCH TIMES.

=THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF.= By S.
BARING-GOULD, M.A., Author of “Curious Myths of the Middle
Ages.”

Volume I. MONOTHEISM and POLYTHEISM. Second Edition. 8vo. 15s.

Volume II. CHRISTIANITY. 8vo. 15s.

=THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL.= From the French. By the Author of
“A Dominican Artist,” “Life of Madame Louise de France,” &c.
Crown 8vo. 5s.

“_‘The Hidden Life of the Soul,’ by the author of ‘A Dominican Artist,’
is from the writings of Father Grou, a French refugee priest of 1792,
who died at Lulworth. It well deserves the character given it of being
‘earnest and sober,’ and not ‘sensational.’_”――GUARDIAN.

“_There is a wonderful charm about these readings――so calm, so true,
so thoroughly Christian. We do not know where they would come amiss. As
materials for a consecutive series of meditations for the faithful at
a series of early celebrations they would be excellent, or for private
reading during Advent or Lent._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_From the French of Jean Nicolas Grou, a pious Priest, whose works
teach resignation to the Divine will. He loved, we are told, to
inculcate simplicity, freedom from all affectation and unreality, the
patience and humility which are too surely grounded in self-knowledge
to be surprised at a fall, but withal so allied to confidence in God as
to make recovery easy and sure. This is the spirit of the volume which
is intended to furnish advice to those who would cultivate a quiet,
meek, and childlike spirit._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

=A DOMINICAN ARTIST=; a Sketch of the Life of the Rev. Père
Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. By the Author of the “The
Tales of Kirkbeck,” “The Life of Madame Louise de France,” &c.
New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.

“_The author of the Life of Père Besson writes with a grace and
refinement of devotional feeling peculiarly suited to a subject-matter
which suffers beyond most others from any coarseness of touch. It
would be difficult to find ‘the simplicity and purity of a holy life’
more exquisitely illustrated than in Father Besson’s career, both
before and after his joining the Dominican Order under the auspices
of Lacordaire.... Certainly we have never come across what could
more strictly be termed in the truest sense ‘the life of a beautiful
soul.’ The author has done well in presenting to English readers this
singularly graceful biography, in which all who can appreciate genuine
simplicity and nobleness of Christian character will find to admire and
little or nothing to condemn._”――SATURDAY REVIEW.

“_It would indeed have been a deplorable omission had so exquisite
a biography been by any neglect lost to English readers, and had
character so perfect in its simple and complete devotion been withheld
from our admiration.... But we have dwelt too long already on this
fascinating book, and must now leave it to our readers._”――LITERARY
CHURCHMAN.

“_A beautiful and most interesting sketch of the late Père Besson, an
artist who forsook the easel for the altar._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_A book which is as pleasant for reading as it is profitable for
meditation._”――UNION REVIEW.

“_Whatever a reader may think of Père Besson’s profession as a monk,
no one will doubt his goodness; no one can fail to profit who will
patiently read his life, as here written by a friend, whose sole defect
is in being slightly unctuous._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_The life of the Rev. Père Besson, who gave up an artist’s career, to
which he was devotedly attached, and a mother whose affection for him
is not inaptly likened to that of Monica for St. Augustine, must be
read in its entirety to be rightly appreciated. And the whole tenour
of the book is too devotional, too full of expressions of the most
touching dependence on God, to make criticism possible, even if it was
called for, which it is not._”――JOHN BULL.

“_The story of Père Besson’s life is one of much interest, and told
with simplicity, candour, and good feeling._”――SPECTATOR.

“_A beautiful book, describing the most saintly and very individual
life of one of the companions of Lacordaire._”――MONTHLY PACKET.

“_We strongly recommend it to our readers. It is a charming biography,
that will delight and edify both old and young._”――WESTMINSTER GAZETTE.

=THE LIFE OF MADAME LOUISE DE FRANCE=, daughter of Louis XV.
Known also as the Mother Térèse de St. Augustine. By the
Author of “Tales of Kirkbeck.” Crown 8vo. 6s.

“_On the 15th of July 1737, Marie Leczinska, the wife of Louis XV.,
and daughter of the dethroned King of Poland, which Prussia helped
to despoil and plunder, gave birth to her eighth female child, Louise
Marie, known also as the Mother Térèse de St. Augustin. On the death of
the Queen, the princess, who had long felt a vocation for a religious
life, obtained the consent of her royal father to withdraw from the
world. The Carmelite convent of St. Denis was the chosen place of
retreat. Here the novitiate was passed, here the final vows were
taken, and here, on the death of the Mère Julie, Madame Louise began
and terminated her experiences as prioress. The little volume which
records the simple incidents of her pious seclusion is designed to
edify those members of the Church of England in whom the spirit of
religious self-devotion is reviving._”――WESTMINSTER REVIEW.

“_The annals of a cloistered life, under ordinary circumstances, would
not probably be considered very edifying by the reading public of the
present generation. When, however, such a history presents the novel
spectacle of a royal princess of modern times voluntarily renouncing
her high position and the splendours of a court existence, for the
purpose of enduring the asceticism, poverty, and austerities of a
severe monastic rule, the case may well be different._”――MORNING POST.

=HENRI PERREYVE.= By A. GRATRY, Prêtre de l’Oratoire, Professeur
de Morale Evangélique à la Sorbonne, et Membre de l’Académie
Française. Translated, by special permission, by the Author of
“A Dominican Artist,” “Life of S. Francis de Sales,” &c., &c.
With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_... A most touching and powerful piece of biography, interspersed
with profound reflections on personal religion, and on the prospects
of Christianity.... For priests this book is a treasure. The moral of
it is the absolute necessity of ‘recollectedness’ to the higher, and
especially the true priestly life._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_The works of the translator of Henri Perreyve ♦from, for the most
part, a series of saintly biographies which have obtained a larger
share of popularity than is generally accorded to books of this
description.... The description of his last days will probably be read
with greater interest than any other part of the book; presenting as
it does an example of fortitude under suffering, and resignation, when
cutoff so soon after entering upon a much-coveted and useful career,
of rare occurrence in this age of self-assertion. This is, in fact, the
essential teaching of the entire volume.... The translator of the Abbé
Gratry’s work has done well in giving English readers an opportunity of
profiting by its lessons._”――MORNING POST.

♦ “form” replaced with “from”

“_Those who take a pleasure in reading a beautiful account of a
beautiful character would do well to procure the Life of ‘Henri
Perreyve.’... We would especially recommend the book for the perusal
of English priests, who may learn many a holy lesson from the devoted
spirit in which the subject of the memoir gave himself up to the duties
of his sacred office, and to this cultivation of the graces with which
he was endowed._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_It is easy to see that Henri Perreyve, Professor of Moral Theology
at the Sorbonne, was a Roman Catholic priest of no ordinary type.
With comparatively little of what Protestants call superstition, with
great courage and sincerity, with a nature singularly guileless and
noble, his priestly vocation, although pursued, according to his
biographer, with unbridled zeal, did not stifle his human sympathies
and aspirations. He could not believe that his faith compelled him
‘to renounce sense and reason,’ or that a priest was not free to speak,
act, and think like other men. Indeed, the Abbé Gratry makes a kind of
apology for his friend’s free-speaking in this respect, and endeavours
to explain it. Perreyve was the beloved disciple of Lacordaire,
who left him all his manuscripts, notes, and papers, and he himself
attained the position of a great pulpit orator._”――PALL MALL GAZETTE.

=THE LAST DAYS OF PÈRE GRATRY.= By PERE ADOLPHE PERRAUD, of the
Oratory, and Professor of La Sorbonne. Translated by special
permission. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=S. FRANCIS DE SALES, BISHOP AND PRINCE OF GENEVA.= By the Author
of “A Dominican Artist,” “Life of Madame Louise de France,”
&c., &c. Crown 8vo. 9s.

“_It is written with the delicacy, freshness, and absence of all
affectation which characterised the former works by the same hand,
and which render these books so very much more pleasant reading than
are religious biographies in general. The character of S. Francis de
Sales, Bishop of Geneva, is a charming one; a more simple, pure, and
pious life it would be difficult to conceive. His unaffected humility,
his freedom from dogmatism in an age when dogma was placed above
religion, his freedom from bigotry in an age of persecution, were
alike admirable._”――STANDARD.

“_The author of ‘A Dominican Artist,’ in writing this new life of
the wise and loving Bishop and Prince of Geneva, has aimed less at
historical or ecclesiastical investigation than at a vivid and natural
representation of the inner mind and life of the subject of his
biography, as it can be traced in his own writings and in those of his
most intimate and affectionate friends. The book is written with the
grave and quiet grace which characterises the productions of its author,
and cannot fail to please those readers who can sympathise with all
forms of goodness and devotion to noble purpose._”――WESTMINSTER REVIEW.

“_A book which contains the record of a life as sweet, pure, and
noble as any man by divine help, granted to devout sincerity of soul,
has been permitted to live upon earth. The example of this gentle
but resolute and energetic spirit, wholly dedicated to the highest
conceivable good, offering itself, with all the temporal uses of mental
existence, to the service of infinite and eternal beneficence, is
extremely touching.... It is a book worthy of acceptance._”――DAILY NEWS.

“_It is not a translation or adaptation, but an original work, and a
very charming portrait of one of the most winning characters in the
long gallery of Saints. And it is a matter of thankfulness to us to
find a distinctively Anglican writer setting forward the good Bishop’s
work among Protestants, as a true missionary task to reclaim souls from
deadly error, and bring them back to the truth._”――UNION REVIEW.

=THE SPIRIT OF S. FRANCIS DE SALES, BISHOP AND PRINCE OF GENEVA.=
Translated from the French by the Author of “The Life of S.
Francis de Sales,” “A Dominican Artist,” &c., &c. Crown 8vo.
6s.

=A SELECTION FROM THE SPIRITUAL LETTERS OF S. FRANCIS DE SALES,
BISHOP AND PRINCE OF GENEVA.= Translated by the Author of
“Life of S. Francis de Sales,” “A Dominican Artist,” &c. &c.
Crown 8vo. 6s.

“_It is a collection of epistolary correspondence of rare interest and
excellence. With those who have read the Life, there cannot but have
been a strong desire to know more of so beautiful a character as S.
Francis de Sales. He was a model of Christian saintliness and religious
virtue for all time, and one everything relating to whom, so great were
the accomplishments of his mind as well as the devotion of his heart,
has a charm which delights, instructs, and elevates._”――CHURCH HERALD.

“_A few months back we had the pleasure of welcoming the Life of S.
Francis de Sales. Here is the promised sequel:――the ‘Selection from
his Spiritual Letters’ then announced:――and a great boon it will be to
many. The Letters are addressed to people of all sorts:――to men and to
women:――to laity and to ecclesiastics, to people living in the world,
or at court, and to the inmates of Religious Houses. And what an idea
it gives one of the widely ramifying influence of one good man and
of the untiring diligence of a man, who in spite of all his external
duties, could find or make the time for all these letters. We hope that
with our readers it may be totally needless to urge such a volume on
their notice._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

=CONSOLATIO=; or, Comfort for the Afflicted. Edited by the Rev.
C. E. KENNAWAY. With a Preface by SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Winchester. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

“_A charming collection from the best writers of passages suitable in
seasons of sickness and afflictions._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_A very valuable collection of extracts from writers of every school.
The volume is an elegant one._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_A very useful collection of devotional extracts from the histories of
good men of very various schools of thought._”――JOHN BULL.

“_We are bound to admire the extreme beauty and the warm devotion
of the majority of passages here collected to smooth the soul that
sorrows, even though penned by men from whom we differ so much in
doctrine._”――ROCK.

“_A work which we feel sure will find a welcome and also prove a
soothing guest in the chamber of many an invalid._”――RECORD.

=A BOOK OF FAMILY PRAYER.= Compiled by WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK,
D.D., Dean of Chichester. Eighth Edition. 18mo. 2s.

=FAMILY PRAYERS.= Compiled from various Sources (chiefly from
Bishop Hamilton’s Manual), and arranged on the Liturgical
Principle. By EDWARD MEYRICK GOULBURN, D.D., Dean of Norwich.
New Edition. Large type. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. Cheap Edition,
16mo. 1s.

=A MANUAL OF CONFIRMATION=, Comprising――1. A General Account
of the Ordinance. 2. The Baptismal Vow, and the English Order
of Confirmation, with Short Notes, Critical and Devotional.
3. Meditations and Prayers on Passages of Holy Scripture,
in connexion with the Ordinance. With a Pastoral Letter
instructing Catechumens how to prepare themselves for their
first Communion. By EDWARD MEYRICK GOULBURN, D.D., Dean of
Norwich. Ninth Edition. Small 8vo. 1s. 6d.

=DIRECTORIUM PASTORALE.= The Principles and Practice of Pastoral
Work in the Church of England. By the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT,
M.A., F.S.A., Editor of “The Annotated Book of Common Prayer,”
&c. &c. Third Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_This is the third edition of a work which has become deservedly
popular as the best extant exposition of the principles and practice of
the pastoral work in the Church of England. Its hints and suggestions
are based on practical experience, and it is further recommended
by the majority of our Bishops at the ordination of priests and
deacons._”――STANDARD.

“_Its practical usefulness to the parochial clergy is proved by the
acceptance it has already received at their hands, and no faithful
parish priest, who is working in real earnest for the extension of
spiritual instruction amongst all classes of his flock will rise from
the perusal of its pages without having obtained some valuable hints as
to the best mode of bringing home our Church’s system to the hearts of
his people._”――NATIONAL CHURCH.

=THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.= Translated into English, with an
Introduction and Notes. By CHARLES H. HOOLE, M.A., Senior
Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Small 8vo. 4s. 6d.

=HYMNS AND POEMS FOR THE SICK AND SUFFERING.= In connexion with
the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. Selected from
various Authors. Edited by T. V. FOSBERY, M.A., Vicar of St.
Giles’s, Reading. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=THE “DAMNATORY CLAUSES” OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED RATIONALLY
EXPLAINED, IN A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.=
By the Rev. MALCOLM MACCOLL, M.A., Rector of St. George,
Botolph Lane. Crown 8vo. 6s.

=A GLOSSARY OF ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS.= Containing Brief
Explanations of Words used in Theology, Liturgiology,
Chronology, Law, Architecture, Antiquities, Symbolism, Greek
Hierology and Mediæval Latin; together with some account
of Titles of our Lord, Emblems of Saints, Hymns, Orders,
Heresies, Ornaments, Offices, Vestments and Ceremonial, and
Miscellaneous Subjects. By Various Writers. Edited by the Rev.
ORBY SHIPLEY, M.A. Crown 8vo. 18s.

=ANCIENT HYMNS.= From the Roman Breviary. For Domestic Use every
Morning and Evening of the Week, and on the Holy Days of the
Church. To which are added, Original Hymns, principally of
Commemoration and Thanksgiving for Christ’s Holy Ordinances.
By RICHARD MANT, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.
New Edition. Small 8vo. 5s.

“_Real poetry wedded to words that breathe the purest and the sweetest
spirit of Christian devotion. The translation from the old Latin Hymnal
are close and faithful renderings._”――STANDARD.

“_As a Hymn writer Bishop Mant deservedly occupies a prominent place in
the esteem of Churchmen, and we doubt not that many will be the readers
who will welcome this new edition of his translations and original
compositions._”――ENGLISH CHURCHMAN.

“_A new edition of Bishop Mant’s ‘Ancient Hymns from the Roman
Breviary’ forms a handsome little volume, and it is interesting to
compare some of these translations with the more modern ones of our own
day. While we have no hesitation in awarding the palm to the latter,
the former are an evidence of the earliest germs of that yearning of
the devout mind for something better than Tate and Brady, and which
know so richly supplied._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_This valuable manual will be of great assistance to all compilers
of Hymn-Books. The translations are graceful, clear, and forcible,
and the original hymns deserve the highest praise. Bishop Mant has
caught the very spirit of true psalmody, his metre flows musically,
and there is a tuneful ring in his verses which especially adapts them
for congregational singing._”――ROCK.

=YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER=: A Poem in Twelve Books. By
E. H. BICKERSTETH, M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Hampstead.
Seventh Edition. Small 8vo. 6s.

“_The most simple, the richest, and the most perfect sacred poem which
recent days have produced._”――MORNING ADVERTISER.

“_A poem worth reading, worthy of attentive study; full of noble
thoughts, beautiful diction, and high imagination._”――STANDARD.

“_Mr. Bickersteth writes like a man who cultivates at once reverence
and earnestness of thought._”――GUARDIAN.

“_In these light miscellany days there is a spiritual refreshment
in the spectacle of man girding up the loins of his mind to the
task of producing a genuine epic. And it is true poetry. There is a
definiteness, a crispness about it, which in these moist, viewy, hazy
days ♦is no less invigorating than novel._”――EDINBURGH DAILY REVIEW.

♦ “in” replaced with “is”

=THE TWO BROTHERS=, and other Poems. By EDWARD HENRY BICKERSTETH,
M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Hampstead, and Chaplain to the
Bishop of Ripon, Author of “Yesterday, To-day, and for Ever.”
Second Edition. Small 8vo. 6s.

=A HANDY BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS ACT, 1871.=
With the Amendment Act, 1872. With Remarks on the
Qualification and Practice of Diocesan Surveyors. By EDWARD G.
BRUTON, F.R.I.B.A., and Diocesan Surveyor, Oxford. Crown 8vo.
5s.

=STONES OF THE TEMPLE; OR, LESSONS FROM THE FABRIC AND FURNITURE
OF THE CHURCH.= By WALTER FIELD, M.A., F.S.A., Vicar of
Godmersham. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_Anyone who wishes for simple information on the subjects of
Church-architecture and furniture, cannot do better than consult
‘Stones of the Temple.’ Mr. Field modestly disclaims any intention
of supplanting the existing regular treatises, but his book shows an
amount of research, and a knowledge of what he is talking about, which
make it practically useful as well as pleasant. The wood-cuts are
numerous and some of them very pretty._”――GRAPHIC.

“_A very charming book, by the Rev. Walter Field, who was for years
Secretary of one of the leading Church Societies. Mr. Field has a
loving reverence for the beauty of the domus mansionalis Dei, as the
old law books called the Parish Church.... Thoroughly sound in Church
feeling, Mr. Field has chosen the medium of a tale to embody real
incidents illustrative of the various portions of his subject. There is
no attempt at elaboration of the narrative, which, indeed, is rather a
string of anecdotes than a story, but each chapter brings home to the
mind its own lesson, and each is illustrated with some very interesting
engravings.... The work will properly command a hearty reception from
Churchmen. The footnotes are occasionally most valuable, and are always
pertinent, and the text is sure to be popular with young folks for
Sunday reading._”――STANDARD.

“_Mr. Field’s chapters on brasses, chancel screens, crosses, encaustic
tiles, mural paintings, porches and pavements, are agreeably written,
and people with a turn for Ritualism will no doubt find them edifying.
The volume, as we have said, is not without significance for readers
who are unable to sympathize with the object of the writer. The
illustrations of Church-architecture and Church ornaments are very
attractive._”――PALL MALL GAZETTE.

=A SHADOW OF DANTE.= Being an Essay towards Studying Himself, his
World, and his Pilgrimage. By MARIA FRANCESCA ROSSETTI. With
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

“_The ‘Shadow of Dante’ is a well-conceived
and inviting volume, designed to recommend the ‘Divina Commedia’ to
English readers, and to facilitate the study and comprehension of its
contents._”――ATHRNÆUM.

“_And it is in itself a true work of art, a whole finely conceived,
and carried out with sustained power,――one of those reproductions and
adumbrations of great works, in which mere servile copying disappears,
and which are only possible to a mind which, however inferior to its
original, is yet of the same order and temperament, with an unusual
faculty for taking the impressions of that original and reflecting them
undimmed. It is much to say of a volume like this. But it is not too
much to say, when, after going through it, we consider the thorough
knowledge of the subject shown in it, the patient skill with which the
intricate and puzzling arrangements of the poem, full of what we call
the conceits and puzzles of the contemporary philosophy, are unravelled
and made intelligible; the discrimination and high principle with which
so ardent a lover of the great poet blames his excesses; the high and
noble Christian faith which responds to his; and, lastly, the gift of
eloquent speech, keen, rich, condensed, expressive, which seems to have
passed into the writer from the loving study of the greatest master
in his own tongue of all the inimitable harmonies of language――the
tenderest, the deepest, the most awful._”――GUARDIAN.

“_The work introduces us not merely to the author’s life and the
political and ecclesiastical conjunctures under which he lived, but
to the outlines of the Catholicised systems of ethics, astronomy, and
geography which he interpreted in classifying his spirits and assigning
them their dwellings; as also to the drift of his leading allegories;
and finally, to the general conduct of his poem――which is amply
illustrated by citations from the most literal verse translations.
We find the volume furnished with useful diagrams of the Dantesque
universe, of Hell, Purgatory, and the ‘Rose of the Blessed,’ and
adorned with a beautiful group of the likenesses of the poet, and with
symbolic figures (on the binding) in which the taste and execution of
Mr. D. G. Rossetti will be recognised. The exposition appears to us
remarkably well arranged and digested; the author’s appreciation of
Dante’s religious sentiments and opinions is peculiarly hearty, and her
style refreshingly independent and original._”――PALL MALL GAZETTE.

“_It bears traces throughout of having been due to a patient, loving
and appreciative study of the great poet, as he is exhibited, not
merely in the ‘Divina Commedia,’ but in his other writings. The result
has been a book which is not only delightful in itself to read, but
is admirably adapted as an encouragement to those students who wish to
obtain a preliminary survey of the land before they attempt to follow
Dante through his long and arduous pilgrimage. Of all poets Dante
stands most in need of such assistance as this book offers._”――SATURDAY
REVIEW.

=PARISH MUSINGS; OR, DEVOTIONAL POEMS.= By JOHN S. B. MONSELL,
LL.D., Rural Dean, and Rector of St. Nicholas, Guildford. Fine
Edition. Small 8vo. 5s. Cheap Edition, 18mo, limp cloth, 1s.
6d.; or in Cover, 1s.

=THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION.= A Series of Lectures delivered in
Substance at All Saints’, Margaret Street, in Lent, 1870. By
the Rev. GEORGE BODY, B.A., Rector of Kirkby Misperton. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.

“_On the whole we have rarely met with a more clear, intelligible and
persuasive statement of the truth as regards the important topics on
which the volume treats. Sermon II. in particular, will strike every
one by its eloquence and beauty, but we scarcely like to specify it,
lest in praising it we should seem to disparage the other portions of
this admirable little work._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_These discourses show that their author’s position is due to
something more and higher than mere fluency, gesticulation, and
flexibility of voice. He appears as having drunk deeply at the
fountain of St. Augustine, and as understanding how to translate
the burning words of that mighty genius into the current language
of to-day._”――UNION REVIEW.

“_There is real power in these sermons:――power, real power, and
plenty of it.... There is such a moral veraciousness about him, such a
profound and over-mastering belief that Christ has proved a bona-fide
cure for unholiness, and such an intensity of eagerness to lead others
to seek and profit by that means of attaining the true sanctity which
alone can enter Heaven――that we wonder not at the crowds which hang
upon his preaching, nor at the success of his fervid appeals to the
human conscience. If any one doubts our verdict, let him buy this
volume. No one will regret its perusal._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

=SERMONS ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS.= By DANIEL MOORE, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, and Vicar of Holy Trinity,
Paddington; Author of Hulsean Lectures on “The Age and the
Gospel,” “Aids to Prayer,” &c. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_We do not wonder at Mr. Moore’s long continued popularity with so
many hearers; there is so much painstaking and so much genuine desire
to discharge his duty as a preacher visible through all the volume.
What we miss is the deeper theology, and the spontaneous flow of
teaching as from a spring which cannot help flowing, which some of our
preachers happily exhibit. But the Sermons may be recommended, or we
would not notice them._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Rarely have we met with a better volume of Sermons.... Orthodox,
affectionate, and earnest, these Sermons exhibit at the same time
much research, and are distinguished by an elegance and finish of
style often wanting in these days of rapid writing and continual
preaching._”――JOHN BULL.

“_Sermons like those of Mr. Moore are, however, still of comparative
rarity――sermons in which we meet with doctrine which cannot be gainsaid;
with a knowledge of the peculiar circumstances of his hearers, which
nothing but accurate observation and long experience can secure, and a
peculiar felicity of style which many will envy, but to which it is the
lot of few to attain._”――CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

“_We have had real pleasure, however, in reading these sermons. Here
are most of the elements of a preacher’s power and usefulness: skilful
arrangement of the subject, admirable clearness of style, earnestness,
both of thought and language, and the prime qualification of all, ‘in
doctrine, uncorruptness.’_”――LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.

=THE KNIGHT OF INTERCESSION, AND OTHER POEMS.= By the Rev.
S. J. STONE, M.A., Pembroke College, Oxford. Second Edition.
Small 8vo. 6s.

“_Mr. Stone has now given to the public a collection of poems, widely
different in form, which enable us to measure more accurately his
powers, not merely as a hymnist, but as a poet; and though we would
not injure a growing reputation by overstating his merits, yet we can
safely say that his volume contains much genuine poetry which will be
read with unqualified pleasure.... It would be ungrateful of us to put
down this volume without expressing the great pleasure it has afforded
us, and our high appreciation of the valuable services which its author
is rendering to the Church._”――CHURCH BELLS.

“_... We all know him so well as the author of the beautiful
processional hymn ‘The Church’s One Foundation,’ the Lenten hymn ‘Weary
of Earth,’ and other favourites, that we were fully prepared for the
pleasure that awaited us in perusing this volume._”――CHURCH OPINION.

“_The extracts we have thus given, differing as they
do alike in subject and in style, present fair specimens of the varied
interest of the volume, and of the poetic powers of its author. Most of
our readers, we think, will agree with us that the publication is
well-timed, and that it has much in it that is both pleasant and profitable
reading._”――CHURCH HERALD.

“_In the ‘Knight of Intercession’ and other poems we have the
outpourings of a pure and devotional spirit, in language of unassuming
and yet genuine poetry, rising at times, naturally and without effort,
to a quiet but real beauty._”――SCOTSMAN.

“_Mr. Stone, it is clear, has studied all the best models, and has
been influenced by them; but he maintains through all a distinctly
individual note, and gives us real music.... There are true touches in
the Idylls, and some of the poems on pictures are remarkably expressive
and skilful, though nothing is more difficult than the proper working
out of such themes. We like some of the sonnets――some of them are
exceptionally sweet and finished._”――NONCONFORMIST.

=THE ANNUAL REGISTER=: A Review of Public Events at Home and
Abroad, for the Year 1872. 8vo. 18s.

⁂ _All the Volumes of the New Series from 1863 to 1872
may be had, 18s. each._

“_Well edited, excellent type, good paper, and in all respects
admirably got up. Its review of affairs, Home, Colonial, and Foreign,
it fair, concise, and complete._”――MINING QUARTERLY.

“_Solidly valuable, as well as interesting._”――STANDARD.

“_Comprehensive and well executed._”――SPECTATOR.

“_The whole work being well-written, and compiled with care and
judgment, it is interesting reading for the present day, will be
more useful as a work of reference in future years, and will be
most valuable of all to readers of another generation. Every student
of history knows the worth, for the time that it covers, of the
old ‘Annual Register,’ and this new series is better done and more
comprehensive than its predecessor._”――EXAMINER.

“_This volume of the new series of the ‘Annual Register’ seems well and
carefully compiled. The narrative is accurate, and it is obvious that
the writers have striven to be impartial._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_The whole of the compilation, however, is readable, and some of
its more important parts are very well done. Such is, among other
historical portions, the account of the situation in France before and
at the beginning of the war. The narrative of the military events is
clear, comprehensive, and attractive._”――NATION (NEW YORK).

=HISTORICAL NARRATIVES.= From the Russian. By H. C. ROMANOFF,
Author of “Sketches of the Rites and Customs of the
Greco-Russian Church,” &c. Crown 8vo. 6s.

=PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS FOR THE HOLY COMMUNION.= With a Preface
by C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
With rubrics and borders in red. Royal 32mo. 2s. 6d.

“_Devout beauty is the special character of this new manual, and it
ought to be a favourite. Rarely has it happened to us to meet with so
remarkable a combination of thorough practicalness with that almost
poetic warmth which is the highest flower of genuine devotion. It
deserves to be placed along with the manual edited by Mr. Keble so
shortly before his decease, not as superseding it, for the scope of
the two is different, but to be taken along with it. Nothing can exceed
the beauty and fulness of the devotions before communion in Mr. Keble’s
book, but we think that in some points the devotions here given after
Holy Communion are even superior to it._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Bishop Ellicott has edited a book of ‘Prayers and Meditations for the
Holy Communion,’ which, among Eucharistic manuals, has its own special
characteristic. The Bishop recommends it to the newly confirmed, to the
tender-hearted and the devout, as having been compiled by a youthful
person, and as being marked by a peculiar ‘freshness.’ Having looked
through the volume, we have pleasure in seconding the recommendations
of the good Bishop. We know of no more suitable manual for the newly
confirmed, and nothing more likely to engage the sympathies of youthful
hearts. There is a union of the deepest spirit of devotion, a rich
expression of experimental life, with a due recognition of the objects
of faith, such as is not always to be found, but which characterises
this manual in an eminent degree._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_The Bishop of Gloucester’s imprimatur is attached to ‘Prayers and
Meditations for the Holy Communion,’ intended as a manual for the
recently confirmed, nicely printed, and theologically sound._”――CHURCH
TIMES.

“_Among the supply of Eucharistic Manuals, one deserves special
attention and commendation. ‘Prayers and Meditations’ merits the Bishop
of Gloucester’s epithets of ‘warm, devout, and fresh.’ And it is
thoroughly English Church besides._”――GUARDIAN.

“_We are by no means surprised that Bishop Ellicott should have been
so much struck with this little work, on accidentally seeing it in
manuscript, as to urge its publication, and to preface it with his
commendation. The devotion which it breathes is truly fervent, and the
language attractive, and as proceeding from a young person the work is
altogether not a little striking._”――RECORD.

=THE PRAYER BOOK INTERLEAVED=; With Historical Illustrations and
Explanatory Notes arranged parallel to the Text. By the Rev.
W. M. CAMPION, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queen’s College, and
Rector of St. Botolph’s, and the Rev. W. J. BEAMONT, M.A.,
late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With a Preface by
the LORD BISHOP OF ELY. Sixth Edition. Small 8vo. 7s. 6d.

=EIGHT LECTURES ON THE MIRACLES.= Being the Bampton Lectures for
1865. By J. B. MOZLEY, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity, and
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Third Edition, Revised. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.

=CATECHESIS; OR, CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION PREPARATORY TO
CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION.= By CHARLES WORDSWORTH,
D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrew’s. New Edition. Small 8vo. 2s.

=A THEORY OF HARMONY.= Founded on the Tempered Scale. With
Questions and Exercises for the Use of Students. By JOHN
STAINER, Mus. Doc., M.A., Magdalene College, Oxford, Organist
to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Royal 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_It is the first work of its class that needs no apology for its
introduction, as it is really much needed especially by teachers, who
would fail without the aid of its principles to account for many of
the effects in modern music, used in direct opposition to the teaching
of the schools. It is difficult, if not impossible, to give a more
elaborate description of a book destined to effect an entire change
in musical teaching without entering into details that could not but
prove uninteresting to the general readers, while to the musician and
amateur, the possession of the book itself is recommended as a valuable
confirmation of ideas that exist to a large extent in the minds of
every one who has ever thought about music, and who desires to see
established a more uniform basis of study. The great and leading
characteristic of the work is its logical reasoning and definitions,
a character not possessed by any previous book on the subject, and for
this Dr. Stainer’s theory is certain to gain ground, and be the means
of opening an easy and pleasant path in a road hitherto beset with the
thorns and briars of perplexing technicalities._”――MORNING POST.

“_Dr. Stainer is a learned musician, and his book supplies a manual of
information as well as a rich repository of musical erudition in the
form of classical quotations from the great masters._”――JOHN BULL.

“_Dr. Stainer, in his thoughtful book, sees clearly of amalgamating
opposing systems in order to found a theory of harmony. He bases
his work on the tempered scale, and he developes and illustrates his
theory by questions and exercises for the use of students. His opening
exposition of the rudiments of music is clear: when he reaches the
regions of harmony he comes on debateable ground._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_To the student perplexed and chained down by the multitudinous rules
of the old theorists, we cannot give better comfort than to advise him
to read forthwith Dr. Stainer’s ingenious and thoughtful book. It is
exceedingly well got up, and from the clearness of the type used, very
easy and pleasant to read._”――CHOIR.

=CHURCH ORGANS=: their Position and Construction. With an
Appendix containing some Account of the Mediæval Organ Case
still existing at Old Radnor, South Wales. By FREDERICK
HEATHCOTE SUTTON, M.A., Vicar of Theddingworth. With
Illustrations. Imperial folio. 6s. 6d.

=MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.= By HENRY FRANCIS LYTE, M.A. New Edition.
Small 8vo. 5s.

=BIBLE READINGS FOR FAMILY PRAYER.= By the Rev. W. H. RIDLEY,
M.A., Rector of Hambleden. Crown 8vo.

Old Testament――Genesis and Exodus. 2s.

New Testament, { St. Luke and St. John. 2s.
{ St. Matthew and St. Mark. 2s.

The Four Gospels, in one volume. 3s. 6d.

=ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’S LITURGY.= Translated by H. C. ROMANOFF,
Author of “Sketches of the Rites and Customs of the
Greco-Russian Church,” &c. With Illustrations. Square crown
8vo. 4s. 6d.

=NOTITIA EUCHARISTICA.= A Commentary, Explanatory, Doctrinal, and
Historical, on the Order of the Administration of the Lord’s
Supper, or Holy Communion, according to the Use of the Church
of England. By W. E. SCUDAMORE, M.A., Rector of Ditchingham,
and formerly Fellow of S. John’s College, Cambridge. 8vo. 28s.

=WORDS TO TAKE WITH US.= A Manual of Daily and Occasional
Prayers, for Private and Common Use. With Plain Instructions
and Counsels on Prayer. By W. E. SCUDAMORE, M.A., Rector
of Ditchingham, and formerly Fellow of S. John’s College,
Cambridge. New Edition. Revised. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_‘Words to Take with Us,’ by W. E. Scudamore, is one of the best
manuals of daily and occasional prayers we have seen. At once orthodox
and practical, sufficiently personal, and yet not perplexingly minute
in its details, it is calculated to be of inestimable value in many a
household._”――JOHN BULL.

“_We are again pleased to see an old friend on the editorial table, in
a third edition of Mr. Scudamore’s well-known Manual of Prayers. The
special proper collects for each day of the week, as well as those for
the several seasons of the Christian year, have been most judiciously
selected. The compiler moreover, while recognising the full benefits
to be derived from the Book of Common Prayer, has not feared to draw
largely from the equally invaluable writings of ancient Catholicity.
The preface is a systematic arrangement of instructions in prayer and
meditation._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

=THE HOME LIFE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AND OTHER SERMONS.=
By the Rev. AUGUSTUS GURNEY, M.A., Vicar of Wribbenhall,
Kidderminster. Crown 8vo. 5s.

=A CHURCH HISTORY OF THE FIRST SEVEN CENTURIES=, to the Close
of the Sixth General Council. By MILO MAHAN, D.D., sometime
S. Mark’s-in-the-Bowery Professor of Ecclesiastical History
in the General Theological Seminary, New York. 8vo. 15s.

=OUR MOTHER CHURCH=: being Simple Talk on High Topics. By
ANNE MERCIER. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_We have rarely come across a book dealing with an old subject
in a healthier and, as far as may be, more original manner, while
yet thoroughly practical, than ‘Our Mother Church,’ by Mrs. Jerome
Mercier. It is intended for and admirably adapted to the use of girls.
Thoroughly reverent in its tone, and bearing in every page marks
of learned research, it is yet easy of comprehension, and explains
ecclesiastical terms with the accuracy of a lexicon without the
accompanying dulness. It is to be hoped that the book will attain to
the large circulation it justly merits._”――JOHN BULL.

“_We have never seen a book for girls of its class which commends
itself to us more particularly than ‘Our Mother Church’ by Mrs. Jerome
Mercier. The author, who is the wife of an earnest parish priest
of the Anglican school, near London, calls her work ‘simple talk on
great subjects,’ and calls it by a name that describes it almost as
completely as we could do in a longer notice than we can spare the
volume. Here are the headings of the chapters:――‘The Primitive Church,’
‘Primitive Places and Modes of Worship,’ ‘The Early English Church,’
‘The Monastic Orders,’ ‘The Friars,’ ‘A Review of Church History,’
‘The Prayer Book,’ (four chapters), ‘Symbolism,’ ‘Church Architecture,’
‘Windows and Bells,’ ‘Church Music,’ ‘Church Work.’ No one can fail
to comprehend the beautifully simple, devout, and appropriate language
in which Mrs. Mercier embodies what she has to say; and for the facts
with which she deals she has taken good care to have their accuracy
assured._”――STANDARD.

“_The plan of this pleasant-looking book is excellent. It is a kind
of Mrs. Markham on the Church of England, written especially for
girls, and we shall not be surprised to find it become a favourite
in schools.... It is really a conversational hand-book to the English
Church’s history, doctrine, and ritual, complied by a very diligent
reader from some of the best modern Anglican sources._”――ENGLISH
CHURCHMAN.

=THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST=; being the
Bampton Lectures for 1866. By HENRY PARRY LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L.,
Canon of St. Paul’s, and Ireland Professor of Exegesis in the
University of Oxford. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s.

=SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.= By HENRY
PARRY LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L., Canon of St. Paul’s, and Ireland
Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford. Fifth
Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 5s.

=SOME ELEMENTS OF RELIGION.= Lent Lectures. By HENRY PARRY LIDDON,
D.D., D.C.L., Canon of St. Paul’s, and Ireland Professor of
Exegesis in the University of Oxford. Crown 8vo. 5s.

=HOUSEHOLD THEOLOGY=: A Handbook of Religious Information
respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, the
Ministry, Divine Worship, the Creeds, &c., &c. By JOHN HENRY
BLUNT, M.A. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=LIBER PRECUM PUBLICARUM ECCLESIÆ ANGLICANÆ.= A GULIELMO BRIGHT,
A.M., et PETRO GOLDSMITH MEDD, A.M., Presbyteris, Collegii
Universitatis in Acad. Oxon. Sociis, Latine redditus. New
Edition, with all the Rubrics in red. Small 8vo. 6s.

=THE PSALMS.= Translated from the Hebrew. With Notes, chiefly
Exegetical. By WILLIAM KAY, D.D., Rector of Great Leighs; late
Principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

“_Like a sound Churchman, he reverences Scripture, upholding
its authority against sceptics; and he does not denounce such as
differ from him in opinion with a dogmatism unhappily too common
at the present day. Hence, readers will be disposed to consider his
conclusions worthy of attention; or perhaps to adopt them without
inquiry. It is superfluous to say that the translation is better and
more accurate on the whole than our received one, or that it often
reproduces the sense of the original happily._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_Dr. Kay has profound reverence for Divine truth, and exhibits
considerable reading, with the power to make use of it._”――BRITISH
QUARTERLY REVIEW.

“_The execution of the work is careful and scholarly._”――UNION REVIEW.

“_To mention the name of Dr. Kay is enough to secure respectful
attention to his new translation of the Psalms. It is enriched with
exegetical notes containing a wealth of sound learning, closely
occasionally, perhaps too closely condensed. Good care is taken
of the student not learned in Hebrew; we hope the Doctor’s example
will prevent any abuse of this consideration, and stimulate those
who profit by it to follow him into the very text of the ancient
Revelation._”――JOHN BULL.

=THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER=; being an Historical,
Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional System
of the Church of England. Edited by the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT,
M.A., F.S.A., Author of “The History of the Reformation,”
“Directorium Pastorale,” Editor of “The Dictionary of
Theology,” &c. Sixth edition, revised. Imperial 8vo. 36s., or
half-bound in morocco, 48s.

=A COMPANION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.= Being a Plain Commentary on
Scripture History, down to the Birth of our Lord. Small 8vo.
3s. 6d.

“_A most admirable Companion to the Old Testament, being far the most
concise yet complete commentary on Old Testament history with which
we have met. Here are combined orthodoxy and learning, an intelligent
and at the same time interesting summary of the leading facts of the
sacred story. It should be a text-book in every school, and its value
is immensely enhanced by the copious and complete index._”――JOHN BULL.

“_This will be found a very valuable aid to the right understanding of
the Bible. It throws the whole Scripture narrative into one from the
creation downwards, the author thus condensing Prideaux, Shuckford,
and Russell, and in the most reverential manner bringing to his aid
the writings of all modern annotators and chronologists. There are no
lengthy comments, no visionary theories, nothing speculative; all is
plain matter of fact, intelligibly stated. The book is one that should
have a wide circulation amongst teachers and students of all
denominations._”――BOOKSELLER.

“_Is a very compact summary of the Old Testament narrative, put
together so as to explain the connection and bearing of its contents,
and written in a very good tone; with a final chapter on the history
of the Jews between the Old and New Testaments. It will be found
very useful for its purpose. It does not confine itself to merely
chronological difficulties, but comments briefly upon the religious
bearing of the text also._”――GUARDIAN.

“_The handbook before us is so full and satisfactory, considering
its compass, and sets forth the history of the old covenant with such
conscientious minuteness, that it cannot fail to prove a godsend to
candidates for examination in the Rudimenta Religionis as well as
in the corresponding school at Cambridge.... In one of our dioceses
the Scripture subjects for diocesan inspection this year included
‘the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchs,’ and
teachers were warned that the higher classes in the schools would be
expected to evince a knowledge gathered from the source and not any
secondary channels. But really we have tested the second book of this
work with an eye to ascertaining whether a mastery of it would have
served the teacher or pupil’s purpose; and our deliberate opinion is
that it would, so careful is the survey, and so very rare the omission
of a single point that is of any historical or doctrinal importance....
Throughout his work the writer of this ‘companion,’ ‘commentary,’ or
‘handbook,’ exhibits at the same time extensive research into the best
sources of information and enlightenment as to the sacred history,
and an independent, though cautious, judgment in his choice between
conflicting theories and explanations._”――ENGLISH CHURCHMAN.

=FABLES RESPECTING THE POPES OF THE MIDDLE AGES.= A Contribution
to Ecclesiastical History. By JOHN J. IGN. VON DÖLLINGER.
Translated, with Introduction and Appendices, by ALFRED
PLUMMER, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford.
8vo. 14s.

=SKETCHES OF THE RITES AND CUSTOMS OF THE GRECO-RUSSIAN CHURCH.=
By H. C. ROMANOFF. With an Introductory Notice by the Author
of “The Heir of Redclyffe.” Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_The twofold object of this work is ‘to present the English with
correct descriptions of the ceremonies of the Greco-Russian Church,
and at the same time with pictures of domestic life in Russian homes,
especially those of the clergy and the middle class of nobles;’ and,
beyond question, the author’s labour has been so far successful that,
whilst her Church scenes may be commended as a series of most dramatic
and picturesque tableaux, her social sketches enable us to look at
certain points beneath the surface of Russian life, and materially
enlarge our knowledge of a country concerning which we have still a
very great deal to learn._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_The volume before us is anything but a formal liturgical treatise.
It might be more valuable to a few scholars if it were, but it would
certainly fail to obtain perusal at the hands of the great majority
of those whom the writer, not unreasonably, hopes to attract by the
narrative style she has adopted. What she has set before us is a
series of brief outlines, which, by their simple effort to clothe the
information given us in a living garb, reminds us of a once popular
childs’ book which we remember a generation ago, called ‘Sketches of
Human Manners.’_”――CHURCH TIMES.

=THE ARGUMENT DELIVERED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL.= By ARCHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS, LL.D., one of Her
Majesty’s Counsel in the case of THOMAS BYARD SHEPPARD against
WILLIAM EARLY BENNETT, Clerk. With an Appendix containing
their Lordships’ Judgment. 8vo. 9s.

=SERMONS ON CERTAIN OF THE LESS PROMINENT FACTS AND REFERENCES
IN SACRED STORY.= By HENRY MELVILL, B.D., late Canon of St.
Paul’s, and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. New Edition.
Two vols. Crown 8vo. 5s. each.

“_We are glad to see this new edition of what we have always considered
to be Melvill’s best sermons, because in them we have his best
thoughts.... Many of these sermons are the strongest arguments yet
adduced for internal evidence of the veracity of the Scriptural
narratives._”――STANDARD.

“_Many who admire elegant phraseology, and the other now rarely
exhibited constituents of pulpit eloquence, will be glad to have in
a convenient shape a judicious selection of Canon Melvill’s sermons.
Mr. Melvill was one of the few really successful preachers of our
day._”――EXAMINER.

“_The sermons of the lamented Melvill are too well known to require any
commendation from us. We have here all the power of rhetoric, and the
grace and beauty of style, for which the author has been distinguished,
and which have contributed to render him a model to preachers, and
given him a representative position in the history of the English
pulpit._”――WEEKLY REVIEW.

“_Polished, classical, and winning, these sermons bear the marks
of literary labour. A study of them will aid the modern preacher
to refine and polish his discourses, and to add to the vigour which
is now the fashion the graces of chastened eloquence and winning
rhetoric._”――ENGLISH CHURCHMAN.

=SELECTION FROM THE SERMONS PREACHED DURING THE LATTER YEARS OF
HIS LIFE, IN THE PARISH CHURCH OF BARNES, AND IN THE CATHEDRAL
OF ST. PAUL’S.= By HENRY MELVILL, B.D., late Canon of St.
Paul’s, and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. Two vols. Crown
8vo. 5s. each.

“_Melvill’s chief characteristic was humility, that truest mark of
real nobility of soul and of genuine genius; and his sole actuating
principle in life was devotion to duty――duty to God and duty to man,
and never were the two more beautifully blended together than in him.
‘While the pure truths of the Gospel,’ observes his biographer in the
memoir prefixed to these sermons, ‘flowed so persuasively from his lips,
the pure spirit of Christianity ever reigned in his heart, and the
purest charity influenced his every thought and every action.’... The
style of Canon Melvill’s sermons is rather Ciceronian than Demosthenic,
rather splendid and measured than impetuous and fervid._”――STANDARD.

“_Two other volumes of the late Canon Melvill’s sermons contain forty
discourses preached by him in his later years, and they are prefaced by
a short memoir of one of the worthiest and most impressive preachers of
recent times._”――EXAMINER.

“_These outlines contain probably the last specimens of the work of
a great master in the art of preaching the Gospel. In the sermons of
Henry Melvill there are a certain dignity and elevation of style and
handling which belong rather to the past than to the present.... There
are in the sermons before us all Melvill’s wonted grace of diction,
strength of reasoning, and aptness of illustration._”――WEEKLY REVIEW.

=SERMONS.= By HENRY MELVILL, B.D., late Canon of St. Paul’s,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. New Edition. Two vols.
Crown 8vo. 5s. each. Sold separately.

“_Messrs. Rivington have published very opportunely, at a time when
Churchmen are thinking with satisfaction of the new blood infused into
the Chapter of St. Paul’s, sermons by Henry Melvill, who in his day was
as celebrated as a preacher as is Canon Liddon now. The sermons are not
only couched in elegant language, but are replete with matter which the
younger clergy would do well to study._”――JOHN BULL.

“_Henry Melvill’s intellect was large, his imagination brilliant, his
ardour intense, and his style strong, fervid, and picturesque. Often he
seemed to glow with the inspiration of a prophet._”――AMERICAN QUARTERLY
CHURCH REVIEW.

“_It would be easy to quote portions of exceeding beauty and power. It
was not, however, the charm of style, nor wealth of words, both which
Canon Melvill possessed in so great abundance, that he relied on to win
souls; but the power and spirit of Him who said, ‘I, if I be lifted up,
will draw all men to Me.’_”――RECORD.

“_Every one who can remember the days when Canon Melvill was the
preacher of the day, will be glad to see these four-and-twenty of his
sermons so nicely reproduced. His Sermons were all the result of real
study and genuine reading, with far more theology in them than those
of many who make much more profession of theology. There are sermons
here which we can personally remember; it has been a pleasure to us
to be reminded of them, and we are glad to see them brought before the
present generation. We hope that they may be studied, for they deserve
it thoroughly._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Few preachers have had more admirers than the Rev. Henry Melvill,
and the new edition of his Sermons, in two volumes, will doubtless find
plenty of purchasers. The Sermons abound in thought, and the thoughts
are couched in English which is at once elegant in construction and
easy to read._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_The Sermons of Canon Melvill, now republished in two handy
volumes, need only to be mentioned to be sure of a hearty welcome.
Sound learning, well-weighed words, calm and keen logic, and solemn
devoutness, mark the whole series of masterly discourses, which embrace
some of the chief doctrines of the Church, and set them forth in clear
and Scriptural strength._”――STANDARD.

=VITA ET DOCTRINA JESU CHRISTI=; Or, Meditations on the Life of
our Lord. By AVANCINI. In the Original Latin. Adapted to the
use of the Church of England by a CLERGYMAN. Imperial 32mo. 2s.
6d.

=THE FIRST BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER OF EDWARD VI.=, and the Ordinal
of 1549, together with the Order of the Communion, 1548.
Reprinted entire, and Edited by the Rev. HENRY BASKERVILLE
WALTON, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. With
an Introduction by the Rev. PETER GOLDSMITH MEDD, M.A., Senior
Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. Small 8vo. 6s.

“_A volume like this is worth two of Church History. In many respects,
indeed, it is the subject of history itself; and with Mr. Medd’s
introduction and Mr. Walton’s editorial work we may be said to have
both subject and history thereof. The volume should be in the hands
of every member of the Church of England: we may say, it should be in
those of every student of Church History._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_We welcome the seasonable appearance of this work, which indeed
supplies a long-felt want, for ‘the First Book’ has been hitherto
accessible to very few.... It is especially important at the present
time that the principles of the first Reformers should be understood;
and no one can look through this edition without gaining some definite
information on that point. We commend this new edition of the First
Prayer Book, with its introduction to the study of all that are
desirous of understanding the principles of those who originated the
reform of our public Services._”――CHURCH NEWS.

“_The more that English Churchmen become acquainted with the Reformed
Prayer Book, as our English Divines reformed it, apart from the
meddling of foreigners――i.e., the better people become acquainted with
‘Edward VI.’s first book,’ the better both for themselves, and for the
English Church at large. We are therefore delighted to welcome this
handy and handsome reprint, with which every pains has been taken to
make it as accurate as possible._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Mr. Walton deserves the very best thanks of Anglican Churchmen, for
putting this most important volume within their reach in so convenient
and handsome a form._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

=INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF CANDIDATES FOR HOLY ORDERS=, And of
the Parochial Clergy; with Acts of Parliament relating to the
same, and Forms proposed to be used. By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON,
M.A., Secretary to the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty. Ninth
Edition. 8vo. 16s.

=THE GREEK TESTAMENT.= With a Critically Revised Text; a
Digest of Various Readings; Marginal References to Verbal and
Idiomatic Usage; Prolegomena; and a Critical and Exegetical
Commentary. For the use of Theological Students and Ministers.
By HENRY ALFORD, D.D., late Dean of Canterbury. New Edition.
Four Volumes. 8vo. 102s.

The Volumes are sold separately as follows:――

Vol. I.――The Four Gospels. 28s.
Vol. II.――Acts to II. Corinthians. 24s.
Vol. III.――Galatians to Philemon. 18s.
Vol. IV.――Hebrews to Revelation. 32s.

=THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR ENGLISH READERS=: containing the
Authorized Version, with a revised English Text; Marginal
References; and a Critical and Explanatory Commentary. By
HENRY ALFORD, D.D., late Dean of Canterbury. New Edition.
Two volumes, or four parts. 8vo. 54s. 6d.

The Volumes are sold separately, as follows:――

Vol. 1, Part I.――The Three first Gospels. 12s.
Vol. 1, Part II.――St. John and the Acts. 10s. 6d.
Vol. 2, Part I.――The Epistles of St. Paul. 16s.
Vol. 2, Part II.――Hebrews to Revelation. 8vo. 16s.

=CURIOUS MYTHS OF THE MIDDLE AGES.= By S. BARING-GOULD, M.A.,
Author of “Post-Mediæval Preachers,” &c. With Illustrations.
New Edition. Complete in One Volume. Crown 8vo. 6s.

“_These Essays will be found to have something to satisfy most classes
of readers; the lovers of legends proper, the curious in popular
delusions, the initiated in Darwinian and Monboddoan theories; and if,
in the chapters on Tell and Gellert, we are a little struck with the
close following of Dasent’s track, in his preface to the Norse tales,
it must be owned that there are chapters――e.g., those on the Divining
Rod, the Man in the Moon, and the Seven Sleepers――which present new
matter and deserve the praise of independent research._”――QUARTERLY
REVIEW.

“_The author, indeed, is sometimes fanciful and overbold in his
conclusions; but he conducts us through marvellous ways――ways which he
has studied well before he undertook to guide others; and if we do not
always acquiesce in his descriptions or arguments, we seldom differ
from him without hesitation._”――ATHENÆUM.

“_We have no space to linger longer about a book which, apart from
its didactic pretensions, is an exceedingly amusing and interesting
collection of old stories and legends of the middle ages._”――PALL MALL
GAZETTE.

“_That, on his first visit to the varied field of mediæval mythology,
Mr. Baring-Gould should have culled as samples of its richness the most
brilliant of the flowers that bloomed in it, is scarcely to be wondered
at. But it shows how fertile is the soil when he is enabled to cull
from it so goodly a second crop as that which he here presents to us.
The myths treated of in the present volume vary in interest――they are
all curious and well worth reading._”――NOTES AND QUERIES.

=THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL.= By JANUS. Authorized translation
from the German. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

“_A profound and learned treatise, evidently the work of one of the
first theologians of the day, discussing with the scientific fulness
and precision proper to German investigation, the great doctrinal
questions expected to come before the Council, and especially the
proposed dogma of Papal Infallibility. There is probably no work in
existence that contains at all, still less within so narrow a compass,
so complete a record of the origin and growth of the infallibilist
theory, and of all the facts of Church history bearing upon it, and
that too in a form so clear and concise as to put the argument within
the reach of any reader of ordinary intelligence, while the scrupulous
accuracy of the writer, and his constant reference to the original
authorities for every statement liable to be disputed, makes the
monograph as a whole a perfect storehouse of valuable information for
the historical or theological student._”――SATURDAY REVIEW.

“_Beginning with a sketch of the errors and contradictions of the
Popes, and of the position which, as a matter of history, they held
in the early Church, the book proceeds to describe the three great
forgeries by which the Papal claims were upheld――the Isidorian
decretals, the donation of Constantine, and the decretum of Gratian.
The last subject ought to be carefully studied by all who wish to
understand the frightful tyranny of a complicated system of laws,
devised not for the protection of a people, but as instruments for
grinding them to subjection. Then, after an historical outline of
the general growth of the Papal power in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the writers enter upon the peculiarly episcopal and clerical
question, pointing out how marvellously every little change worked in
one direction, invariably tending to throw the rule of the Church into
the power of Rome; and how the growth of new institutions, like the
monastic orders and the Inquisition, gradually withdrew the conduct
of affairs from the Bishops of the Church in general, and consolidated
the Papal influence. For all this, however, unless we could satisfy
ourselves with a mere magnified table of contents the reader must
be referred to the book itself, in which he will find the interest
sustained without flagging to the end._”――PALL MALL GAZETTE.

“_In France, in Holland, and in Germany, there has already appeared a
multitude of disquisitions on this subject. Among these several are the
acknowledged compositions of men of high standing in the Roman Catholic
world,――men admittedly entitled to speak with the authority that must
attach to established reputation: but not one of them has hitherto
produced a work more likely to create a deep impression than the
anonymous German publication at the head of this notice. It is not
a piece of merely polemical writing, it is a treatise dealing with
a large subject in an impressive though partisan manner, a treatise
grave in tone, solid in matter, and bristling with forcible and novel
illustrations._”――SPECTATOR.

“_Rumour will, no doubt, be busy with its conjectures as to the name
which lurks beneath the nom de plume of ‘Janus.’ We do not intend to
offer any contribution towards the elucidation of the mystery unless
it be a contribution to say that the book bears internal evidence of
being the work of a Catholic, and that there are not many Catholics
in Europe who could have written it. Taking it all in all, it is no
exaggerated praise to characterise it as the most damaging assault
on Ultra-montanism that has appeared in modern times. Its learning
is copious and complete, yet so admirably arranged that it invariably
illustrates without overlaying the argument. The style is clear and
simple, and there is no attempt at rhetoric. It is a piece of cool and
masterly dissection, all the more terrible for the passionless manner
in which the author conducts the operation._”――TIMES.

=LETTERS FROM ROME ON THE COUNCIL.= By QUIRINUS. Reprinted from
the “Allgemeine Zeitung.” Authorized Translation. Crown 8vo.
12s.

=FEMALE CHARACTERS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.= In a Series of Sermons.
By the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D., formerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Oxford. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s.

=THE CHARACTERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= In a Series of Sermons.
By the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D., formerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Oxford. New Edition. Crown 8vo., 5s.

“_This is one of the few volumes of published sermons that we
have been able to read with real pleasure. They are written with a
chastened elegance of language, and pervaded by a spirit of earnest
and simple piety. Mr. Williams is evidently what would be called
a very High Churchman. Occasionally his peculiar Church views are
apparent; but bating a few passages here and there, these sermons
will be read with profit by all ‘who profess and call themselves
Christians.’_”――CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.

“_This is a new edition of a very popular――and deservedly popular――work
on the biography of the Old Testament history. The characters are ably
and profitably analysed, and that by the hand of a master of style and
thought.... The principle of selection has been that of prominence; and
partly, too, that of significance in the characters so ably delineated.
A more masterly analysis of Scriptural characters we never read,
nor any which are more calculated to impress the mind of the reader
with feelings of love for what is good, and abhorrence for what is
evil._”――ROCK.

=THE HILLFORD CONFIRMATION: A TALE.= By M. C. PHILLPOTTS. 18mo.
1s.

=APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.= By the Rev.
ARTHUR W. HADDAN, B.D., Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, and
late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 8vo. 12s.

“_Mr. Haddan’s estimate of the bearing of his subject, and of its
special importance at the present juncture is characteristic, and
will well repay attention.... Mr. Haddan is strictly argumentative
throughout. He abstains with some strictness from everything which
would divert either his reader or himself from accurate investigation
of his reasoning. But his volume is thoroughly well written, clear
and forcible in style, and fair in tone. It cannot but render valuable
service in placing the claims of the Church in their true light before
the English public._”――GUARDIAN.

“_Among the many standard theological works devoted to this important
subject Mr. Haddan’s will hold a high place._”――STANDARD.

“_We should be glad to see the volume widely circulated and generally
read._”――JOHN BULL.

“_A weighty and valuable treatise, and we hope that the study of its
sound and well-reasoned pages will do much to fix the importance, and
the full meaning of the doctrine in question, in the minds of Church
people.... We hope that our extracts will lead our readers to study
Mr. Haddan for themselves._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_This is not only a very able and carefully written treatise upon the
doctrine of Apostolical Succession, but it is also a calm yet noble
vindication of the validity of the Anglican Orders: it well sustains
the brilliant reputation which Mr. Haddan left behind him at Oxford,
and it supplements his other profound historical researches in
ecclesiastical matters. This book will remain for a long time the
classic work upon English Orders._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_A very temperate, but a very well reasoned book._”――WESTMINSTER
REVIEW.

“_Mr. Haddan ably sustains his reputation throughout the work. His
style is clear, his inferences are reasonable, and the publication
is especially well-timed in prospect of the coming Œcumenical
Council._”――CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY GAZETTE.

=A MANUAL FOR THE SICK=; with other Devotions. By LANCELOT
ANDREWES, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of Winchester. Edited
with a Preface by H. P. LIDDON, M.A. Large type. With Portrait.
24mo. 2s. 6d.

=HELP AND COMFORT FOR THE SICK POOR.= By the Author of “Sickness;
its Trials and Blessings.” New Edition. Small 8vo. 1s.

=A DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE.= By the Rev.
ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D., formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Oxford. A New and uniform Edition. In Eight volumes. Crown
8vo. 5s. each.

_THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY OF THE HOLY GOSPELS._

Characteristic Differences in the Four Gospels.
Our Lord’s Manifestations of Himself.
The Rule of Scriptural Interpretation furnished by our Lord.
Analogies of the Gospel.
Mention of Angels in the Gospels.
Places of our Lord’s Abode and Ministry.
Our Lord’s Mode of Dealing with His Apostles.
Conclusion.

_A HARMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS._

Our Lord’s Nativity.
Our Lord’s Ministry――Second Year.
Our Lord’s Ministry――Third Year.
The Holy Week.
Our Lord’s Passion.
Our Lord’s Resurrection.

_OUR LORD’S NATIVITY._

The Birth at Bethlehem.
The Baptism in Jordan.
The First Passover.

_OUR LORD’S MINISTRY._
SECOND YEAR.

The Second Passover.
Christ with the Twelve.
The Twelve sent forth.

_OUR LORD’S MINISTRY._
THIRD YEAR.

Teaching in Galilee.
Teaching at Jerusalem.
Last Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem.

_THE HOLY WEEK._

The Approach to Jerusalem.
The Teaching in the Temple.
The Discourse on the Mount of Olives.
The Last Supper.

_OUR LORD’S PASSION._

The Hour of Darkness.
The Agony.
The Apprehension.
The Condemnation.
The Day of Sorrows.
The Hall of Judgment.
The Crucifixion.
The Sepulture.

_OUR LORD’S RESURRECTION._

The Day of Days.
The Grave Visited.
Christ Appearing.
The Going to Emmaus.
The Forty Days.
The Apostles Assembled.
The Lake in Galilee.
The Mountain in Galilee.
The Return from Galilee.

“_There is not a better companion to be found for the season than
the beautiful ‘Devotional Commentary on the Gospel Narrative,’ by the
Rev. Isaac Williams.... A rich mine for devotional and theological
study._”――GUARDIAN.

“_So infinite are the depths and so innumerable the beauties of
Scripture, and more particularly of the Gospels, that there is
some difficulty in describing the manifold excellences of Williams’
exquisite Commentary. Deriving its profound appreciation of Scripture
from the writings of the early Fathers, it is only what every student
knows must be true to say that it extracts a whole wealth of meaning
from each sentence, each apparently faint allusion, each word in the
text._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_Stands absolutely alone to our English literature; there is, we
should say, no chance of being superseded by any better book of
its kind; and its merits are of the very highest order._”――LITERARY
CHURCHMAN.

“_It would be difficult to select a more useful present, at a small
cost, than this series would be to a young man on his first entering
into Holy Orders, and many, no doubt, will avail themselves of
the republication of these useful volumes for this purpose. There
is an abundance of sermon material to be drawn from any one of
them._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_This is, in the truest sense of the word, a ‘Devotional Commentary’
on the Gospel narrative, opening out everywhere, as it does, the
spiritual beauties and blessedness of the Divine message; but it is
something more than this, it meets difficulties almost by anticipation,
and throws the light of learning over some of the very darkest passages
in the New Testament._”――ROCK.

“_The author has skilfully compared and blended the narratives of the
different Gospels, so as to give a synoptical view of the history;
and though the commentary is called ‘devotional,’ it is scholarly
and suggestive in other respects. The size of the work, extending,
as it does, over eight volumes, may deter purchasers and readers;
but each volume is complete in itself, and we recommend students to
taste a sample of the author’s quality. Some things they may question;
but the volumes are really a helpful and valuable addition to our
stores._”――FREEMAN.

“_The high and solemn verities of the Saviour’s sufferings and death
are treated with great reverence and ability. The thorough devoutness
which pervades the book commends it to our heart. There is much to
instruct and help the believer in the Christian life, no matter to what
section of the Church he may belong._”――WATCHMAN.

KEYS TO CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.

=A KEY TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF THE HOLY BIBLE.= By the Rev.
J. H. BLUNT, M.A. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_Another of Mr. Blunt’s useful and workmanlike compilations,
which will be most acceptable as a household book, or in schools
and colleges. It is a capital book too for schoolmasters and pupil
teachers._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_As a popular handbook, setting forth a selection of facts of which
everybody ought to be cognizant, and as an exposition of the claims
of the Bible to be received as of superhuman origin, Mr. Blunt’s ‘Key’
will be useful._”――CHURCHMAN.

“_A great deal of useful information is comprised in these pages,
and the book will no doubt be extensively circulated in Church
families._”――CLERICAL JOURNAL.

“_We have much pleasure in recommending a capital handbook by the
learned editor of ‘The Annotated Book of Common Prayer.’_”――CHURCH
TIMES.

“_Merits commendation for the lucid and orderly arrangement in
which it presents a considerable amount of valuable and interesting
matter._”――RECORD.

=A KEY TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.=
By the Rev. J. H. BLUNT, M.A. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_A very valuable and practical manual, full of information, which is
admirably calculated to instruct and interest those for whom it was
evidently specially intended――the laity of the Church of England. It
deserves high commendation._”――CHURCHMAN.

“_A thoroughly sound and valuable manual._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_To us it appears that Mr. Blunt has succeeded very well. All
necessary information seems to be included, and the arrangement is
excellent._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_It is the best short explanation of our offices that we know of, and
would be invaluable for the use of candidates for confirmation in the
higher classes._”――JOHN BULL.

=A KEY TO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE FOUNDED ON THE CHURCH
CATECHISM.= By the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A. Small 8vo. 2s.
6d.

“_Of cheap and reliable text-books of this nature there has hitherto
been a great want. We are often asked to recommend books for use in
Church Sunday-schools, and we therefore take this opportunity of saying
that we know of none more likely to be of service both to teachers and
scholars than these ‘Keys.’_”――CHURCHMAN’S SHILLING MAGAZINE.

“_This is another of Mr. Blunt’s most useful manuals, with all the
precision of a school book, yet diverging into matters of practical
application so freely as to make it most serviceable, either as
a teacher’s suggestion book, or as an intelligent pupil’s reading
book._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_Will be very useful for the higher classes in Sunday-schools,
or rather for the fuller instruction of the Sunday-school teachers
themselves, where the parish priest is wise enough to devote a certain
time regularly to their preparation for their voluntary task._”――UNION
REVIEW.

“_Another of the many useful books on theological and Scriptural
subjects which have been written by the Rev. John Henry Blunt. The
present is entitled ‘A Key to Christian Doctrine and Practice, founded
on the Church Catechism,’ and will take its place as an elementary
text-book upon the Creed in our schools and colleges. The Church
Catechism is clearly and fully explained by the author in this ‘Key’.
Numerous references, Scriptural and otherwise, are scattered about the
book._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

=A KEY TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHURCH HISTORY.= (Ancient.) Edited by
JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_It offers a short and condensed account of the origin, growth, and
condition of the Church in all parts of the world, from A.D. 1 down
to the end of the fifteenth century. Mr. Blunt’s first object has been
conciseness, and this has been admirably carried out, and to students
of Church history this feature will readily recommend itself. As an
elementary work ‘A Key’ will be specially valuable, inasmuch as it
points out certain definite lines of thought, by which those who
enjoy the opportunity may be guided in reading the statements of more
elaborate histories. At the same time it is but fair to Mr. Blunt to
remark that, for general readers, the little volume contains everything
that could be consistently expected in a volume of its character.
There are many notes, theological, scriptural, and historical, and
the ‘get up’ of the book is specially commendable. As a text-book for
the higher forms of schools the work will be acceptable to numerous
teachers._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

“_It contains some concise notes on Church History, compressed into
a small compass, and we think it is likely to be useful as a book of
reference._”――JOHN BULL.

“_A very terse and reliable collection of the main facts and incidents
connected with Church History._”――ROCK.

“_It will be excellent, either for school or home use, either as a
reading or as a reference book, on all the main facts and names and
controversies of the first fifteen centuries. It is both well arranged
and well written._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

=A KEY TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHURCH HISTORY= (Modern). Edited by
the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

=A KEY TO THE NARRATIVE OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.= By JOHN PILKINGTON
NORRIS, M.A., Canon of Bristol, formerly one of Her Majesty’s
Inspectors of Schools. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_This is very much the best book of its kind we have seen. The only
fault is its shortness, which prevents its going into the details which
would support and illustrate its statements, and which in the process
of illustrating them would fix them upon the minds and memories of its
readers. It is, however, a great improvement upon any book of its kind
we know. It bears all the marks of being the condensed work of a real
scholar, and of a divine too. The bulk of the book is taken up with a
‘Life of Christ’ compiled from the Four Gospels so as to exhibit its
steps and stages and salient points. The rest of the book consists of
independent chapters on special points._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_This book is no ordinary compendium, no mere ‘cram-book’; still less
is it an ordinary reading book for schools; but the schoolmaster, the
Sunday-school teacher and the seeker after a comprehensive knowledge
of Divine truth will find it worthy of its name. Canon Norris writes
simply, reverently, without great display of learning, giving the
result of much careful study in a short compass, and adorning the
subject by the tenderness and honesty with which he treats it.... We
hope that this little book will have a very wide circulation and that
it will be studied; and we can promise that those who take it up will
not readily put it down again._”――RECORD.

“_This is a golden little volume. Having often to criticise unsparingly
volumes published by Messrs. Rivington, and bearing the deep High
Church brand, it is the greater satisfaction to be able to commend this
book so emphatically. Its design is exceedingly modest. Canon Norris
writes primarily to help ‘younger students’ in studying the Gospels.
But this unpretending volume is one which all students may study with
advantage. It is an admirable manual for those who take Bible Classes
through the Gospels. Closely sifted in style, so that all is clear and
weighty; full of unostentatious learning, and pregnant with suggestion;
deeply reverent in spirit, and altogether Evangelical in spirit; Canon
Norris’ book supplies a real want, and ought to be welcomed by all
earnest and devout students of the Holy Gospels._”――LONDON QUARTERLY
REVIEW.

=A KEY TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.= By JOHN PILKINGTON NORRIS,
M.A. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

“_It is a remarkably well-written and interesting account of its
subject, ‘The Book of the Acts,’ giving us the narrative of St.
Luke with exactly what we want in the way of connecting links and
illustrations. One most notable and praiseworthy characteristic of
the book is its candour.... The book is one which we can heartily
recommend._”――SPECTATOR.

“_Of Canon Norris’s ‘Key to the Narrative of the Four Gospels,’ we
wrote in high approval not many months ago. The present is not less
carefully prepared, and is full of the unostentatious results of sound
learning and patient thought._”――LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.

“_This little volume is one of a series of ‘Keys’ of a more or less
educational character, which are in the course of publication by Messrs.
Rivington. It gives apparently a very fair and tolerably exhaustive
résumé of the contexts of the Acts, with which it deals, not chapter
by chapter, but consecutively in the order of thought._”――SCHOOL BOARD
CHRONICLE.

“_Few books have ever given us more unmixed pleasure than this. It is
faultlessly written, so that it reads as pleasantly and enticingly as
if it had not the least intention of being an ‘educational’ book. It is
complete and exhaustive, so far as the narrative and all its bearings
go, so that students may feel that they need not be hunting up other
books to supply the |lacunæ|. It is the work of a classical scholar,
and it leaves nothing wanting in the way of classical illustrations,
which in the case of the Acts are of special importance. And, lastly,
it is theologically sound._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_This is a sequel to Canon Norris’s ‘Key to the Gospels,’ which was
published two years ago, and which has become a general favourite with
those who wish to grasp the leading features of the life and word of
Christ. The sketch of the Acts of the Apostles is done in the same
style; there is the same reverent spirit and quiet enthusiasm running
through it, and the same instinct for seizing the leading points in the
narrative._”――RECORD.

⁂ _Other Volumes are in preparation._

RIVINGTON’S DEVOTIONAL SERIES.

Elegantly printed with red borders. 16mo. 2s. 6d. each.

=THOMAS À KEMPIS, OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST.=

Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, 1s.,
or in Cover, 6d.

“_A very beautiful edition. We commend it to the Clergy as an excellent
gift-book for teachers and other workers._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_This work is a precious relic of mediæval times, and will continue to
be valued by every section of the Christian Church._”――WEEKLY REVIEW.

“_A beautifully printed pocket edition of this marvellous production
of a man, who, out of the dark mists of popery, saw so much of
experimental religion. Those who are well grounded in evangelical
truth may use it with profit._”――RECORD.

“_A very cheap and handsome edition._”――ROCK.

_This new edition is a marvel of cheapness._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_Beautifully printed, and very cheap editions of this long-used
hand-book of devotion._”――LITERARY WORLD.

=THE RULE AND EXERCISES OF HOLY LIVING.= By JEREMY TAYLOR, D.D.,
Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore.

Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, 1s.

=THE RULE AND EXERCISES OF HOLY DYING.= By JEREMY TAYLOR, D.D.,
Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore.

Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, 1s.

The ‘HOLY LIVING’ and the ‘HOLY DYING’ may be had bound together
in One Volume, 5s.; or without the red borders, 2s. 6d.

“_An extremely well-printed and well got up edition, as pretty and
graceful as possible, and yet not too fine for real use. We wish the
devotions of this beautiful book were more commonly used._”――LITERARY
CHURCHMAN.

“_We must admit that there is a want of helps to spiritual life amongst
us. Our age is so secular, and in religious movements so bustling, that
it is to be feared the inner life is too often forgotten. Our public
teachers may, we are sure, gain by consulting books which show how
contentedness and self-renunciation may be increased; and in which the
pathology of all human affections is treated with a fulness not common
in our theological class rooms._”――FREEMAN.

“_The publishers have done good service by the production of these
beautiful editions of works, which will never lose their preciousness
to devout Christian spirits. It is not necessary for us to say a word
as to their intrinsic merits; we have only to testify to the good
taste, judgment, and care shown in these editions. They are extremely
beautiful in typography and in the general getting up._”――ENGLISH
INDEPENDENT.

“_We ought not to conclude our notice of recent devotional books,
without mentioning to our readers the above new, elegant, and cheap
reprint, which we trust will never be out of date or out of favour in
the English branch of the Catholic Church._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_These manuals of piety written by the pen of the most beautiful
writer and the most impressive divine of the English Church, need no
commendation from us. They are known to the world, read in all lands,
and translated, we have heard, into fifty different languages. For two
centuries they have fed the faith of thousands upon thousands of souls,
now we trust happy with their God, and perhaps meditating in Heaven
with gratitude on their celestial truths, kindled in their souls by a
writer who was little short of being inspired._”――ROCK.

“_These little volumes will be appreciated as presents of inestimable
value._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

“_Either separate or bound together, may be had these two standard
works of the great divine. A good edition very tastefully printed and
bound._”――RECORD.

=A SHORT AND PLAIN INSTRUCTION FOR THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
THE LORD’S SUPPER=; to which is annexed the Office of the Holy
Communion, with proper Helps and Directions. By THOMAS WILSON,
D.D., late Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Complete Edition, in
large type.

Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders,
1s., or in Cover, 6d.

“_The Messrs. Rivington have published a new and unabridged edition of
that deservedly popular work, Bishop Wilson on the Lord’s Supper. The
edition is here presented in three forms, suited to the various members
of the household._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

“_We cannot withhold the expression of our admiration of the style
and elegance in which this work is got up._”――PRESS AND ST. JAMES’
CHRONICLE.

“_A departed author being dead yet speaketh in a way which will never
be out of date; Bishop Wilson on the Lord’s Supper, published by Messrs.
Rivington, in bindings to suit all tastes and pockets._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_We may here fitly record that Bishop Wilson on the Lord’s Supper has
been issued in a new but unabridged form._”――DAILY TELEGRAPH.

=INTRODUCTION TO THE DEVOUT LIFE.= From the French of SAINT
FRANCIS of Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva. A New
Translation.

“_A very beautiful edition of S. Francis de Sales’ ‘Devout Life:’ a
prettier little edition for binding, type, and paper, of a very great
book is not often seen._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_The translation is a good one, and the volume is beautifully got
up. It would serve admirably as a gift book to those who are able to
appreciate so spiritual a writer as St. Francis._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_It has been the food and hope of countless souls ever since its
first appearance two centuries and a half ago, and it still ranks
with Scupoli’s ‘Combattimento Spirituale,’ and Arvisenet’s ‘Memoriale
Vitæ Sacerdotalis,’ as among the very best works of ascetic theology.
We are glad to commend this careful and convenient version to our
readers._”――UNION REVIEW.

“_We should be curious to know by how many different hands ‘The Devout
Life’ of S. Francis de Sales had been translated into English. At
any rate, its popularity is so great that Messrs. Rivington have just
issued another translation of it. The style is good, and the volume is
of a most convenient size._”――JOHN BULL.

“_To readers of religious treatises, this volume will be highly valued.
The ‘Introduction to the Devout Life’ is preceded by a sketch of the
life of the author, and a dedicatory prayer of the author is also
given._”――PUBLIC OPINION.

=A PRACTICAL TREATISE CONCERNING EVIL THOUGHTS=: wherein
their Nature, Origin, and Effect are distinctly considered
and explained, with many Useful Rules for restraining and
suppressing such Thoughts; suited to the various conditions
of Life, and the several tempers of Mankind, more especially
of melancholy Persons. By WILLIAM CHILCOT, M.A.

“_An elegant edition of an old devotional manual by a clergyman who
was a rector in Exeter at the beginning of the last century. It seems
to contain a great deal of valuable truth as to the sources of evil
thoughts and the mode in which they may be expressed._”――ENGLISH
INDEPENDENT.

“_The book is worthy of a careful perusal, and is one which once known
is likely to be recurred to again and again, a characteristic not
always to be met within works of our own day._”――RECORD.

“_Messrs. Rivington have done all that publishers could do to give
strengthening matter a cheerful form._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

=THE ENGLISH POEMS OF GEORGE HERBERT=, together with his
Collection of Proverbs, entitled JACULA PRUDENTUM.

“_This beautiful little volume will be found specially convenient
as a pocket manual. The ‘Jacula Prudentum’ or proverbs, deserve to
be more widely known than they are at present. In many copies of
George Herbert’s writings these quaint sayings have been unfortunately
omitted._”――ROCK.

“_George Herbert is too much a household name to require any
introduction. It will be sufficient to say that Messrs. Rivington
have published a most compact and convenient edition of the poems and
proverbs of this illustrious English divine._”――ENGLISH CHURCHMAN.

“_An exceedingly pretty edition, the most attractive form we have yet
seen from this delightful author, as a gift-book._”――UNION REVIEW.

“_A very beautiful edition of the quaint old English bard. All lovers
of the ‘Holy’ Herbert will be grateful to Messrs. Rivington for the
care and pains they have bestowed in supplying them with this and
withal convenient copy of poems so well known and so deservedly
prized._”――LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.

“_A very tasteful little book, and will doubtless be acceptable to
many._”――RECORD.

“_We commend this little book heartily to our readers. It contains
Herbert’s English poems and the ‘Jacula Prudentum,’ in a very neat
volume which does much credit to the publishers; it will, we hope,
meet with extensive circulation as a choice gift-book at a moderate
price._”――CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

_NEW THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY._

=DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.= By various
writers. Edited by the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A., F.S.A.
Editor of the Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Second Edition.

_Complete in one volume of 833 pages, imperial 8vo (equal to
six 8vo volumes of 400 pages each), and printed in large
readable type, 42s. or half-bound in morocco, 52s. 6d._

1. NATURE OF THE WORK. This Dictionary consists of a series of
original Essays (alphabetically arranged, and 575 in number) on all the
principal subjects connected with the Doctrines of the Christian Church.
Some idea of the subjects, and of the length of the articles, may be
formed from the following titles of those which occupy the work from
page 700 to page 720.

SIGN. SPINOZISM. SUFFRAGAN.
SIMONY. SPIRIT. SUNDAY.
SIN. SPIRIT, THE HOLY. SUPEREROGATION.
SINAITIC CODEX. SPONSORS. SUPERNATURAL.
SOCINIANISM. SUBDEACONS. SUPERSTITION.
SOLIFIDIANISM. SUBLAPSARIANISM. SUPRALAPSARIANISM.
SOUL. SUBSTANCE. SUPREMACY, PAPAL.

2. OBJECT OF THE WORK. The writers of all the Essays have endeavoured
to make them sufficiently exhaustive to render it unnecessary for the
majority of readers to go further for information, and, at the same
time, sufficiently suggestive of more recondite sources of Theological
study, to help the student in following up his subjects. By means of a
Table prefixed to the Dictionary, a regular course of such study may be
carried out in its pages.

3. PRINCIPLES OF THE WORK. The Editor and his coadjutors have carefully
avoided any party bias, and consequently the work cannot be said to be
either “High Church,” “Low Church,” or “Broad Church.” The only bias
of the Dictionary is that given by Revelation, History, Logic, and the
literary idiosyncrasy of each particular contributor. But the Editor
has not attempted to assist the circulation of the book by making
it colourless on the pretence of impartiality. Errors are freely
condemned, and truths are expressed as if they were worth expressing;
but he believes that no terms of condemnation which may be used ever
transgress the bounds of Christian courtesy.

4. PART OF A SERIES. The Dictionary of Theology is complete in itself,
but it is also intended to form part of a Series, entitled, “A Summary
of Theology,” of which the second volume, “A Dictionary of Sects,
Heresies, and Schools of Thought,” is in the press.

“_Taken as a whole the articles are the work of practised writers, and
well informed and solid theologians.... We know no book of its size
and bulk which supplies the information here given at all; far less
which supplies it in an arrangement so accessible, with a completeness
of information so thorough, and with an ability in the treatment of
profound subjects so great. Dr. Hook’s most useful volume is a work of
high calibre, but it is the work of a single mind. We have here a wider
range of thought from a greater variety of sides. We have here also the
work of men who evidently know what they write about and are somewhat
more profound (to say the least), than the writers of the current
Dictionaries of Sects and Heresies._”――GUARDIAN.

“_Mere antiquarianism, however interesting, has little place in it.
But for all practical purposes its historical articles are excellent.
They are of course, and of necessity, a good deal condensed, yet they
are wonderfully complete; see for example such articles as ‘Atheism,’
‘Cabbala,’ ‘Calvinism,’ ‘Canonization,’ ‘Convocations,’ ‘Evangelical,’
‘Fathers,’ ‘Infant Baptism,’ &c., &c. But the strength of the book
lies in the theology proper, and herein more particularly in what
one may call the metaphysical side of doctrine:――see the articles
on ‘Conceptualism,’ ‘Doubt,’ ‘Dualism,’ ‘Election,’ ‘Eternity,’
‘Everlasting Punishment,’ ‘Fatalism,’ and the like. We mention these
as characteristic of the book. At the same time other more practical
matters are fully dealt with. There are excellent and elaborate
papers on such words as ‘Eucharist,’ ‘Confession,’ ‘Blood,’ ‘Cross,’
‘Antichrist,’ to say nothing of the host of minor matters on which it
is most convenient to be able to turn to a book which gives you at a
glance the pith of a whole library in a column or a page. Thus it will
be obvious that it takes a very much wider range than any undertaking
of the same kind in our language; and that to those of our clergy who
have not the fortune to spend in books, and would not have the leisure
to use them if they possessed them, it will be the most serviceable and
reliable substitute for a large library we can think of. And in many
cases, while keeping strictly within its province as a Dictionary, it
contrives to be marvellously suggestive of thought and reflections,
which a serious minded man will take with him and ponder over for his
own elaboration and future use. As an example of this we may refer to
the whole article on Doubt. It is treated of under the successive heads
of,――(1) its nature; (2) its origin; (3) the history of the principal
periods of Doubt; (4) the consciousness――or actual experience of
Doubt, and how to deal with its different phases and kinds; (5) the
relations of Doubt to action and to belief. To explain a little we
will here quote a paragraph or two, which may not be unacceptable to
our readers.... The variety of the references given in the course of
this article, and at its conclusion, show how carefully the writer
has thought out and studied his subject in its various manifestations
in many various minds, and illustrate very forcibly how much reading
goes to a very small amount of space in anything worth the name of
‘Dictionary of Theology.’ We trust most sincerely that the book may be
largely used. For a present to a clergyman on his ordination, or from a
parishioner to his pastor, it would be most appropriate. It may indeed
be called ‘a box of tools for a working clergyman.’_”――LITERARY
CHURCHMAN.

“_Seldom has an English work of equal magnitude been so permeated with
Catholic instincts, and at the same time seldom has a work on theology
been kept so free from the drift of rhetorical incrustation. Of course
it is not meant that all these remarks apply in their full extent to
every article. In a great Dictionary there are compositions, as in a
great house there are vessels, of various kinds. Some of these at a
future day may be replaced by others more substantial in their build,
more proportionate in their outline, and more elaborate in their detail.
But admitting all this, the whole remains a home to which the student
will constantly recur, sure to find spacious chambers, substantial
furniture, and (which is most important) no stinted light._”――CHURCH
REVIEW.

“_The second and final instalment of Mr. Blunt’s useful Dictionary,
itself but a part of a more comprehensive plan, is now before the
public, and fully sustains the mainly favourable impression created
by the appearance of the first part. Within the sphere it has marked
out for itself, no equally useful book of reference exists in English
for the elucidation of theological problems.... Entries which display
much care, research, and judgment in compilation, and which will make
the task of the parish priest who is brought face to face with any of
the practical questions which they involve far easier than has been
hitherto. The very fact that the utterances are here and there somewhat
more guarded and hesitating than quite accords with our judgment, is a
gain in so far as it protects the work from the charge of inculcating
extreme views, and will thus secure its admission in many places where
moderation is accounted the crowning grace._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_The writers who are at work on it are scholars and theologians, and
earnest defenders of the Christian faith. They evidently hold fast
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and have the religious
instruction of the rising ministry at heart. Moreover, their scheme is
a noble one; it does credit not only to their learning and zeal, but
also to their tact and discretion._”――LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.

“_Infinitely the best book of the kind in the language; and, if not
the best conceivable, it is perhaps the best we are ever likely to
see within its compass as to size and scope. Accurate and succinct
in statement, it may safely be trusted as a handbook as regards facts,
while in our judgment, this second part still maintains the character
we gave the first, namely, of showing most ability in its way of
treating the more abstract and metaphysical side of theological
questions. The liturgical articles also in this part deserve especial
mention. The book is sure to make its own way by sheer force of
usefulness._”――LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

“_It is not open to doubt that this work, of which the second and
concluding part has just been issued, is in every sense a valuable and
important one. Mr. Blunt’s Dictionary is a most acceptable addition to
English theological literature. Its general style is terse and vigorous.
Whilst its pages are free from wordiness, there is none of that undue
condensation which, under the plea of judicious brevity, veils a mere
empty jotting down of familiar statements (and mis-statements), at
second or, it may be, third hand from existing works. Dean Hook’s
well-known Dictionary makes the nearest approach to the one now before
us, but Mr. Blunt’s is decidedly the better of the two._”――ENGLISH
CHURCHMAN.

“_It will be found of admirable service to all students of theology,
as advancing and maintaining the Church’s views of all subjects as fall
within the range of fair argument and inquiry. It is not often that a
work of so comprehensive and so profound a nature is marked to the very
end by so many signs of wide and careful research, sound criticism, and
well-founded and well-expressed belief._”――STANDARD.

=THE HAPPINESS OF THE BLESSED CONSIDERED= as to the Particulars
of their State: their Recognition of each other in that State:
and its Differences of Degrees. To which are added Musings on
the Church and her Services. By RICHARD MANT, D.D., sometime
Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

“_A welcome republication of a treatise once highly valued, and which
can never lose its value. Many of our readers already know the fulness
and discrimination with which the author treats his subject, which must
be one of the most delightful topics of meditation to all whose heart
is where the only true treasure is, and particularly to those who are
entering upon the evening of life._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_The value of this book needs not to be referred to, its standard
character having been for many years past established. The edition in
which it reappears has evidently been carefully prepared, and will be
the means of making it more generally known._”――BELL’S MESSENGER.

“_All recognise the authority of the command to set the affections on
things above, and such works as the one now before us will be found
helpful towards this good end. We are, therefore, sincerely glad that
Messrs. Rivington have brought out a new edition of Bishop Mant’s
valuable treatise._”――RECORD.

“_This beautiful and devotional treatise, which it is impossible
to read without feeling a more deepened interest in the eternal
blessedness which awaits the true servants of our God, concludes very
appropriately with ‘Musings on the Church and her Services,’ which we
cordially recommend to our readers._”――ROCK.

=THE SERVICES OF THE CHURCH.= Containing the Book of Common
Prayer, the Proper Lessons and Psalms for Sundays and Holy
Days, and the Daily Lessons, according to the Use of the
Church of England. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

=THE BOOK OF LESSONS.= Containing the Proper Lessons and Psalms
for Sundays and Holy Days, together with the Daily Lessons
from the Calendar. Crown 8vo. 9s.

=AIDS TO PRAYER; OR, THOUGHTS ON THE PRACTICE OF DEVOTION.=
With Forms of Prayer for Private Use. By DANIEL MOORE, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, and Vicar of Holy Trinity,
Paddington, Author of “Sermons on Special Occasions,” Hulsean
Lectures on “The Age and the Gospel,” &c. Second Edition.
Square 32mo. 2s. 6d.

“_The valuable characteristic of this work will be recognised by every
serious, thoughtful Christian, in a word, by all who perceive and
lament the growing tendency to prefer the claims of external service,
ecclesiastical controversy, or multiplied activities to the practice of
private devotion. ‘Aids to Prayer’ offers both encouragement and help
to those who aspire to higher attainments in the Divine Life. Every
page bears the impress of a matured judgment, and of an experimental
acquaintance with a subject confessedly difficult, and of supreme
importance._”――RECORD.

“_Eloquently, ably, and practically written._”――ENGLISH CHURCHMAN.

“_‘Aids to Prayer’ has deservedly reached a second edition. The sermon
method of treatment has been wisely discontinued._”――JOHN BULL.

=THE ATHANASIAN ORIGIN OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.= By J. S. BREWER,
M.A., Preacher at the Rolls, and Honorary Fellow of Queen’s
College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND=: its History,
Principles, and Results, A.D. 1514‒1547. By JOHN HENRY BLUNT,
M.A., Vicar of Kennington, Oxford. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s.

=THE CHURCH BUILDER.= A Quarterly Journal of Church Extension
in England and Wales. Published in connection with The
Incorporated Church Building Society. With Illustrations.
Annual Volumes. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d. each.

=PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS.= By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D.,
formerly Vicar of St. Mary’s, Oxford. Edited by the Rev.
W. J. COPELAND, Rector of Farnham, Essex. From the Text of
the last Editions published by Messrs. Rivington. 8 Volumes.
Sold separately. Crown 8vo. 5s. each.

=SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY.= By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN,
B.D. Edited by the Rev. W. J. COPELAND, Rector of Farnham,
Essex. With an Index of Dates of all the Sermons. Crown 8vo.
5s.

=FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD=,
BETWEEN A.D. 1826 AND 1843. By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D.,
sometime Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. New Edition. Crown
8vo. 5s.

=HERBERT TRESHAM.= A Tale of the Great Rebellion. By the late
Rev. J. M. NEALE, D.D. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

“_We cordially welcome a new edition of Dr. Neale’s ‘Herbert Tresham.’
The scene is laid in the time of the great civil war, and vivid
pictures are drawn of some of the startling events that then disgraced
the history of this country. The martyrdom of Archbishop Laud is
described in a manner few besides its author could equal, while the
narration of the disastrous battle of Naseby, and the disgraceful
surrender of Bristol by Prince Rupert, afford proof of the versatility
of his genius._”――CHURCH TIMES.

“_A pleasant Christmas present is Dr. Neale’s ‘Herbert Tresham.’ Such
a book is well calculated to correct current views of 17th century
history._”――CHURCH REVIEW.

“_Nothing could be more admirable as a Christmas present._”――CHURCH
NEWS.

=THE MANOR FARM: A TALE.= By M. C. PHILLPOTTS, Author of “The
Hillford Confirmation.” With Illustrations. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

“_The Manor Farm, by Miss Phillpotts, author of the ‘Hillford
Confirmation,’ is a pious story, which amongst other things shows the
dawning of light in superstitious minds._”――MORNING POST.

“_‘The Manor Farm’ relates how, under good influence, a selfish
girl became a useful and gentle daughter. The story is a capital
illustration of the value of perseverance, and it is a book that will
be very useful in parochial reading libraries._”――JOHN BULL.

“_A prettily got-up and prettily written little book above the average
of the class it belongs to._”――EDINBURGH COURANT.

=PERRANZABULOE, THE LOST CHURCH FOUND=; Or the Church of England
not a New Church, but Ancient, Apostolical, and Independent,
and a Protesting Church Nine Hundred Years before the
Reformation. By the Rev. C. T. COLLINS TRELAWNY. Seventh
Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=SACRED ALLEGORIES.= Illustrated Edition. By the Rev. W. ADAMS,
M.A., late Fellow of Merton College, Oxford.

The SHADOW of the CROSS. The DISTANT HILLS. The OLD MAN’S
HOME. The KING’S MESSENGERS. New Edition in one Volume.
Square 16mo. 5s.

The Cheap Editions may still be had, 18mo., 1s. each, or 6d.
in Paper Covers.

=ENGLISH NURSERY RHYMES.= Translated into French. By JOHN
ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Square
16mo. 2s. 6d.

=SICKNESS; ITS TRIALS AND BLESSINGS.= New Edition. Small 8vo.
3s. 6d.

Also a Cheap Edition, 1s. 6d.; or in paper cover, 1s.

=CATENA CLASSICORUM=

_A Series of Classical Authors. Edited by Members of both
Universities, under the Direction of the Rev. =Arthur Holmes=,
M.A., Senior Fellow and Dean of Clare College, Cambridge, and
late Preacher at the Chapel Royal, Whitehall; and the Rev.
=Charles Bigg=, M.A., late Senior Student and Tutor of Christ
Church, Oxford; Principal of Brighton College._

_Sophoclis Tragoediae._

=THE ELECTRA=, 3s. 6d. =THE AJAX=, 3s. 6d.
Edited by R. C. JEBB, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity
College, Cambridge, and Public Orator of the University.

_Juvenalis Satirae._

Edited by G. A. SIMCOX, M.A., Fellow and Classical Lecturer of
Queen’s College, Oxford. New Edition, revised. 5s.

_Thucydidis Historia._

Edited by CHARLES BIGG, M.A., late Senior Student and Tutor of
Christ Church, Oxford; Principal of Brighton College.
Books I. and II., with Introductions. 6s.

_Demosthenis Orationes Publicae._

=THE OLYNTHIACS=, 2s. 6d. =THE PHILIPPICS=, 3s. =DE FALSA
LEGATIONE=, 6s.
Edited by G. H. HESLOP, M.A., late Fellow and Assistant Tutor
of Queen’s College, Oxford; Head Master of St. Bees.

_Aristophanis Comoediae._

=THE ACHARNIANS and THE KNIGHTS=, 4s. =THE CLOUDS=, 3s. 6d.
=THE WASPS=, 3s. 6d.
Edited by W. C. GREEN, M.A., late Fellow of King’s College,
Cambridge; Assistant Master at Rugby School.
An Edition of =THE ACHARNIANS and THE KNIGHTS=, Revised and
especially adapted for Use in Schools. 4s.

_Isocratis Orationes._

=AD DEMONICUM ET PANEGYRICUS=, 4s. 6d.
Edited by JOHN EDWIN SANDYS, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of St.
John’s College, Classical Lecturer at Jesus College, Cambridge.

_Persii Satirae._

Edited by A. PRETOR, M.A., Fellow of St. Catherine’s College,
Cambridge, Classical Lecturer of Trinity Hall. 3s. 6d.

_Homeri Ilias._

Edited by S. H. REYNOLDS, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of
Brasenose College, Oxford. Books I. to XII. 6s.

_Terenti Comoediae._

=ANDRIA ET EUNUCHUS=, 4s. 6d.
Edited by T. L. PAPILLON, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford,
late Fellow of Merton.

_Demosthenis Orationes._

=DE CORONA=, 5s.
Edited by the Rev. ARTHUR HOLMES, M.A., Senior Fellow and Dean
of Clare College, Cambridge, and late Preacher at the Chapel
Royal, Whitehall.

_Herodoti Historia._

Edited by H. G. WOODS, Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College,
Oxford.
Book I. 6s. Book II. 5s.

=RIVINGTON’S MATHEMATICAL SERIES=

=ALGEBRA.= Part I. By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A., of Gonville and
Caius College, and late Lecturer at St. Peter’s College,
Cambridge. Part I. 12mo. 3s.; without Answers, 2s. 6d.

“_The design of this treatise is to explain all that is commonly
included in a First Part of Algebra. In the arrangement of the chapters,
I have followed the advice of experienced teachers. I have carefully
abstained from making extracts from books in common use. The only work
to which I am indebted for any material assistance is the Algebra of
the late Dean Peacock, which I took as the model for the commencement
of my treatise. The examples, progressive and easy, have been selected
from university and college examination papers, and from Old English,
French, and German works._”――FROM THE PREFACE.

“_It is evident that Mr. Hamblin Smith is a teacher, and has written to
meet the special wants of students. He does not carry the student out
of his depth by sudden plunges, but leads him gradually onward, never
beyond his depth from any desire to hurry forward. The examples appear
to be particularly well arranged, so as to afford a means of steady
progress. With such books the judicious teacher will have abundant
supply of examples and problems for those who need to have each step
ensured by familiarity, and he will be able to allow the more rapid
learner to travel onward with ease and swiftness. We can confidently
recommend Mr. Hamblin Smith’s books. Candidates preparing for Civil
Service examinations under the new system of open competition will find
these works to be of great value._”――CIVIL SERVICE GAZETTE.

=EXERCISES ON ALGEBRA.= By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A. Part I. 12mo.
2s. 6d.

=ELEMENTARY TRIGONOMETRY.= By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A. Part I.
12mo. 4s. 6d.

=ELEMENTARY HYDROSTATICS.= By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A. Part I.
12mo. 3s.

=ELEMENTS OF GEOMETRY.= By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A. Containing
the First Six and portions of the Eleventh and Twelfth
Books of Euclid, with Exercises and Notes, arranged with the
Abbreviations admitted in the Cambridge Examinations. 12mo,
3s. 6d.

Part I., containing the First Two Books of Euclid, with
Exercises and Notes. 12mo, 2s.; limp cloth, 1s. 6d.

Part II., containing the Third and Fourth Books of Euclid,
with Exercises and Notes. 12mo, 2s.; limp cloth, 1s. 6d.

Part III., containing the Fifth and Sixth and portions of the
Eleventh and Twelfth Books of Euclid, with Exercises and
Notes. 12mo, 2s.; limp cloth, 1s. 6d.

=ELEMENTARY STATICS.= By J. HAMBLIN SMITH, M.A. 12mo. 3s.

⁂ _Other Volumes are in preparation._

=SELECT PLAYS OF SHAKSPERE=

_RUGBY EDITION. With an Introduction and Notes to each Play.
Small 8vo._

=AS YOU LIKE IT.= Edited by the Rev. CHARLES E. MOBERLY, M.A.,
Assistant Master in Rugby School, formerly Scholar of Balliol
College, Oxford 2s.; paper cover, 1s. 6d.

=MACBETH.= Edited by the same. 2s.; paper cover, 1s. 6d.

=CORIOLANUS.= Edited by ROBERT WHITELAW, M.A., Assistant Master
in Rugby School, formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
2s. 6d.; paper cover, 2s.

=HAMLET.= Edited by the Rev. CHARLES E. MOBERLY, M.A. 2s. 6d.;
in paper cover, 2s.

=THE TEMPEST.= Edited by J. SURTEES PHILLPOTTS, M.A., Assistant
Master in Rugby School, formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford.
[_In preparation._

=MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.= Edited by the same. [_In preparation._

⁂ _Other Plays are in preparation._

=LATIN PROSE EXERCISES.= Being Easy Graduated English Sentences
for Translation into Latin, with Rules, Explanations, a
Vocabulary, and Index. Intended for the Use of Beginners and
Junior Forms of Schools. By R. PROWDE SMITH, B.A., Assistant
Master at the Grammar School, Henley-on-Thames. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.

=SELECTIONS FROM LUCIAN.= With English Notes. By EVELYN ABBOTT,
Assistant Master in Clifton College. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.

=SCENES FROM GREEK PLAYS.= Rugby Edition. Abridged and adapted
for the Use of Schools, by ARTHUR SIDGWICK, M.A., Assistant
Master at Rugby School, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.

ARISTOPHANES. The Clouds. The Frogs. The Knights. Plutus.

EURIPIDES. Iphigenia in Taurus. The Cyclops. Ion.

Small 8vo. 1s. 6d. each, or 1s. in paper cover.

=MESSRS. RIVINGTON’S COMPLETE SCHOOL CATALOGUE=, with Press
Notices and Specimen Pages, may be had on application.

INDEX
(to the Catalog)

PAGE
ABBOTT (Evelyn), Selections from Lucian, 30

Adams (W.), Holy Week, 3

――――, Sacred Allegories, 27

À Kempis, Imitation of Christ, 22

Alford (Henry), Greek Testament, 16

――――, New Testament for English Readers, 16

Andrewes (Bishop Lancelot), Manual for the Sick, 18

Annotated Prayer Book, By J. H. Blunt, 13

Annual Register, 10

Aristophanis Comoediae, by W. C. Green, 28

Aristophanes (Scenes from), by Sidgwick, 30

Avancini, Vita et Doctrina Jesu Christi, 16

BICKERSTETH (E. H.), Two Brothers, 7

――――, Yesterday, To-Day, etc., 7

Bigg (Chas), Thucydidis Historia, 28

Blunt (J. H.) Directorium Pastorale, 6

――――, Household Theology, 13

――――, Key to Bible, 20

――――, Key to Church Catechism, 20

――――, Key to Church History (Ancient), 20

――――, Key to Church History (Modern), 21

――――, Key to Common Prayer, 20

――――, Reformation, 26

――――, and Norris (J. P.), Keys to Christian
Knowledge, 20

――――, and Phillimore (G. F.), Book of Church Law, 1

Body (George), Life of Justification, 9

Book of Lessons, 26

――――, The, Church Law, 1

Brewer (J. S.), Athanasian Creed, 26

Bright (A. W.), and Medd (P. G.), Liber Precum
Publicarum, 13

Bruton (E. G.), Ecclesiastical Dilapidations, 7

CAMPION (W. M.) and Beamont (W. J.), Prayer Book
Interleaved, 10

Catena Classicorum, 28

Chilcot (William), Evil Thoughts, 23

Church Builder, 26

Common Prayer and Ordinal, 1549, 16

Companion to Old Testament, 14

Consolatio, by C. E. Kennaway, 6

DEMOSTHENIS ORATIONES, by Arthur Holmes, 28

――――, Publicae, by G. H. Heslop, 28

Dictionary of Theology, 24

Döllinger (John J. Ign. Von.), Fables respecting
the Popes, &c., 14

――――, Lectures on Reunion, 3

Dominican Artist (A), 4

EDWARD VI., First Book of Common Prayer of, 16

Euripides, Scenes from, by Sidgwick, 30

FIELD (Walter), Stones of the Temple, 8

Fosbery (T. V.), Hymns and Poems, &c., 7

GLOSSARY of Ecclesiastical Terms, by Orby Shipley, 7

Goulburn (Dean), Manual of Confirmation, 6

――――, Family Prayers, 6

――――, Pursuit of Holiness, 6

――――, Thoughts on Personal Religion, 1

Gould (S. B.) Curious Myths, &c., 17

――――, Religious Belief, 3

Gratry (Père), Henri Perreyve, 5

――――, Last Days of, 5

Greek Testament, by Dean Alford, 16

Green (W. C.), Aristophanis Comoediae, 28

Guide to Heaven, 2

Gurney (Augustus), Home Life of Jesus of
Nazareth, 12

HADDAN (A. W.), Apostolic Succession, 18

Help and Comfort for the Sick Poor, 18

Herbert (George), Poems and Proverbs, 23

Herodoti Historia, by H. G. Woods, 28

Hidden Life of the Soul, 4

Hodgson (Chris.), Instructions for the Clergy, 16

Holmes (Arthur), Demosthenis Orationes, 28

Homeri Ilias, by. S. H. Reynolds, 28

Hook (W. F.), Family Prayers, 6

Hoole (Chas. H.), Shepherd of Hermas, 6

Hymns and Poems, by T. V. Fosbery, 7

IMITATION of Christ, 22

Isocratis Orationes, by John Edwin Sandys, 28

JANUS, Pope and Council, 17

Jebb (R. C.), Sophoclis Tragoediae, 28

Juvenalis Satirae, by G. A. Simcox, 28

KAY (W.) on the Psalms, 13

Keys to Christian Knowledge, 19, 20

Kennaway (C. E.), Consolatio, 6

LETTERS from Rome on the Council, by Quirinus, 17

Liber Precum Publicarum, 13

Liddon (H. P.), Bampton Lectures, 13

――――, Elements of Religion, 13

――――, University Sermons, 13

Louise, Life of Madame, de France, 4

Lyte (Henry F.), Poems, 11

MACCOLL (M.), Damnatory Clauses, etc., 7

Mahan (Milo), Church History, 12

Mant (Richard), Ancient Hymns, 7

――――, Happiness of the Blessed, 26

Melvill (Henry), Sermons, 15

――――, Latter Sermons, 15

――――, Sermons on Less Prominent Facts, 15

Mercier (Anne), Our Mother Church, 15

Moberly (George), Brighstone Sermons, 3

――――, Great Forty Days, 3

Monsell (John S. B.), Parish Musings, 8

Moore (Daniel), Aids to Prayer, 26

――――, Sermons, 9

Mozley’s (J. B.) Lectures on the Miracles, 11

NEALE (J. M.), Herbert Tresham, 27

Newman (J. H.), Sermons, 27

――――, Sermons, Oxford University, 27

――――, Sermons, Subjects of the Day, 27

New Testament by Henry Alford, 16

Norris (J. B.), Key to the Acts, 21

――――, Key to the Four Gospels, 21

PAPILLON (T. L.), Terenti Comoediae, 28

Path of Holiness, 2

Perraud (Père A.), Last Days of Père Gratry, 5

Perreyve (Henri), Life of, 5

Persii Satirae, by A. Pretor, 28

Phillpotts (M. C.), Hillford Confirmation, 18

――――, Manor Farm, 27

Pope, The, and the Council, by Janus, 17

Prayer Book Interleaved, 10

Prayers and Meditations for Holy Communion, 10

QUIRINUS, Letters from Rome, 17

REYNOLDS (S. H.), Homeri Ilias, 28

Ridley (W. H.), Bible Readings, 11

Rivington’s Devotional Series, 22

―――― Mathematical Series, 29

Roberts (John), English Nursery Rhymes, 27

Romanoff (H. C.), Historical Narratives, 10

――――, Rites and Customs of the Greco-Russian
Church, 14

――――, S. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy, 11

Rossetti (Maria F.), Shadow of Dante, 8

SALES (S. Francis de), Devout Life, 23

――――, Letters, 6

――――, Life, 5

――――, Spirit, 5

Sandys (J. E.), Isocratis Orationes, 28

Scudamore (W. E.), Manual of Prayers, 12

――――, Notitia Eucharistica, 12

Self-Renunciation, 3

Services of the Church, 26

Shakspere’s As You Like It, 30

―――― Coriolanus, 30

―――― Hamlet, 30

―――― Macbeth, 30

―――― Much Ado about Nothing, 30

―――― Tempest, 30

Shepherd of Hermas, 6

Shipley (Orby), Glossary of Ecclesiastical Terms, 7

Sickness; Its Trials, &c., 27

Sidgwick’s Scenes from Greek Plays, 30

Simcox (G. A.), Juvenalis Satirae, 28

Smith (J. H.), Algebra, Part I., 29

――――, Algebra, Exercises on, 29

――――, Geometry, 29

――――, Hydrostatics, 29

――――, Statics, 29

――――, Trigonometry, 29

Smith (R. Prowde), Latin Prose Exercises, 30

Sophoclis Tragoediae, by R. C. Jebb, 28

Stainer (John), Theory of Harmony, 11

Star of Childhood, 2

Stephens (A. J.), Argument: Sheppard v. Bennett, 14

Stone (S. J.), Poems, 9

Sutton (Fred. H.), Church Organs, 11

TAYLOR (Jeremy), Holy Dying, 22

――――, Holy Living, 22

Terenti Comoediae, by T. L. Papillon, 28

Thucydidis Historia, by Chas. Bigg, 28

Treasury of Devotion, 2

Trelawny, (C. T. C.), Perranzabuloe, 27

WALTON (H. B.), and Medd (P. G.), Common Prayer
and Ordinal, 1549, 16

Way of Life, 2

Williams (Isaac), Devotional Commentary, 19

――――, Female Scripture Characters, 18

――――, Old Testament Characters, 18

Wilson (Bishop), Lord’s Supper, 22

Woods (H. G.), Herodoti Historia, 28

Wordsworth (Charles), Catechesis, 11

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A commentary on Ecclesiastes" ***

Home